What is in a genus name? Conceptual and empirical issues preclude the proposed recognition of Callibella (Callitrichinae) as a genus
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.
KeywordsClassification Dwarf marmoset Genus concept Mico humilis Subgenus Taxonomy
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).
- 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
- Begon M, Townsend C, Harper H (2006) Ecology from individuals to ecosystems. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
- de Vivo M (1991) Taxonomia de Callithrix Erxleben, 1777. Fundação Biodiversitas, Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
- Groves CP (2001) Primate taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Groves CP (2017) Primates (Taxonomy). In: Fuentes A (ed) The international encyclopedia of primatology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1–9Google Scholar
- Teta P, Abba AM, Cassini GH et al (2018) Lista revisada de los mamíferos de Argentina. Mastozool Neotrop 25:163–198Google Scholar
- 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
- 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