Advertisement

Mammalian Biology

, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 132–133 | Cite as

Species delimitation in mammals: A response to Gippoliti

  • Frank E. ZachosEmail author
Point of view

Abstract

In a comment published in this issue, Spartaco Gippoliti (2019) presents a critique of a recent perspective paper of mine (Zachos, 2018a). Specifically, he accuses me of diminishing taxonomy and of denying it its proper role in conservation biology. Here I respond to these criticisms and argue that taxonomy is necessary but not sufficient for delineating appropriate units for conservation due to its inherent threshold character that is a direct consequence of imposing a discrete classification system (taxonomy) onto a continuous process (evolution).

Keywords

Conservation Species concepts Taxonomy 

References

  1. 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
  2. Faurby, S., Eiserhardt, W.L., Svenning, J.-C., 2016. Strong effect ofvariation in taxonomic opinion on diversification analyses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frankham, R., 2015. Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 24, 2610–2618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frankham, R., Ballou, J.D., Dudash, M.R., Eldridge, M.D.B., Fenster, C.B., Lacy, R.C., Mendelson III, J.R., Porton, I.J., Ralls, K., Ryder, O.A., 2012. Implications of different species concepts for conserving biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 153, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garnett, S.T., Christidis, L., 2017. Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation. Nature 546, 25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Groves, C.P., 2013. The nature of species: a rejoinder to Zachos et al. Mamm. Biol. 78, 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gippoliti, S., 2019. Species delimitation in mammals: a comment on Zachos (2018). Mamm. Biol.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Heller, R., Frandsen, P., Lorenzen, E.D., Siegismund, H.R., 2013. Are there really twice as many bovid species as we thought? Syst. Biol. 62, 490–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heller, R., Frandsen, P., Lorenzen, E.D., Siegismund, H.R., 2014. Is diagnosability an indicator of speciation? Response to “Why one century of phenetics is enough”. Syst. Biol. 63, 833–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hendry, A.P., Vamosi, S.M., Latham, S.J., Heilbuth, J.C., Day, T., 2000. Questioning species reality. Conserv Genet. 1, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Matthews, P.H., 2014. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, third ed. Oxford University Press, 6Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Mishler, B.D., 1999. Getting rid of species? In: Wilson, R.A. (Ed.), Species. New Interdisciplinary Essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 307–315.Google Scholar
  15. Riddle, B.R., Hafner, D.J., 1999. Species as units of analysis in ecology and biogeography: time to take the blinders off. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 8, 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55, 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tobias, J.A., Seddon, N., Spottiswoode, C.N., Pilgrim, J.D., Fishpool, L.D.C., Collar, N.J., 2010. Quantitative criteria for species delimitation. Ibis 152, 724–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Willis, S.C., 2017. One species or four? Yes!... and, no. Or, arbitray assignment of lineages to species obscures the diversification processes of neotropical fishes. PLoS One 12 (2), e0172349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zachos, F.E., 2015. Taxonomic inflation, the phylogenetic species concept and lineages in the tree of life—a cautionary comment on species splitting. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 53, 180–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zachos, F.E., 2016. Species Concepts in Biology etc. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zachos, F.E., 2018a. Mammals and meaningful taxonomic units: the debate about species concepts and conservation. Mammal. Rev.,  https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12121.Google Scholar
  22. Zachos, F.E., 2018b. (New) Species concepts, species delimitation and the inherent limitations of taxonomy. J. Genet.Google Scholar
  23. Zachos, F.E., Species concepts and species delimitation in mammals, in press. In: Zachos, F.E. and Asher, R., Mammalian Evolution, Diversity and Systematics. Handbook of Zoology, Mammalia Series, De Gruyter, Berlin. ISBN: 978-3-11-027590-2.Google Scholar
  24. 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., Rössner, G.E., Sánchez-Villagra, M.R., Scandura, M., Suchentrunk, F., 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.Mammal CollectionNatural History Museum ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of Integrative ZoologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations