Advertisement

Mammalian Biology

, Volume 81, Issue 2, pp 185–188 | Cite as

Tree thinking and species delimitation: Guidelines for taxonomy and phylogenetic terminology

  • Frank E. ZachosEmail author
Editorial

Abstract

By tradition, phylogenetic trees are presented in such a way that species-poor taxa are placed on the left side and their more diverse sister taxa on the right (usually with humans on the far right). This often leads to reading the tree as a “ladder of progress” from left (allegedly primitive, basal or even ancestral) to right (allegedly advanced, derived, descendant). Although biologically and logically wrong and often bemoaned, the evolutionary literature teems with language perpetuating this phylogenetic misconception. Likewise, the splitting of one into two or more species based on different versions of the Phylogenetic Species Concept has recently found a growing number of adherents, resulting, in the eyes of many, in a trivialization of the species category (“taxonomic inflation”). This editorial briefly summarizes these phylogenetic and taxonomic issues and provides guidelines to authors submitting their studies to Mammalian Biology in order to avoid errors in phylogenetic discussions and to do justice to the fundamental nature of species in biology.

Keywords

Phylogenetic trees “Primitive lineage fallacy” Scala naturae Species concepts Species splitting 

References

  1. Agapow, P.M., Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Crandall, K.A., Gittleman, J.L., Mace, G.M., Marshall, J.C., Purvis, A., 2004. The impact of species concept on biodiversity studies, Q. Rev. Biol. 79, 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, D.A., Smith, S.D., Donovan, S.S.S., 2005. The tree-thinking challenge, Science 310, 979–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  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. Gippoliti, S., Groves, C.P., 2012. “Taxonomic inflation” in the historical context of mammalogy and conservation, Hystrix It. J. Mammal. 23, 6–9.Google Scholar
  6. Groves, C.P., 2013. The nature of species: a rejoinder to Zachos et al. Mammal. Biol., 7–9.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Isaac, J.B., Mallet, J., Mace, G.M., 2004. Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroe-cology and conservation, Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 464–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krell, F.T., Cranston, P.S., 2004. Which side of the tree is more basal? Syst, Entomol. 29, 279–281.Google Scholar
  11. Lovejoy, A.O., 1936. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Marris, E., 2007. The species and the specious, Nature 446, 250–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Omland, K.E., Cook, L.G., Crisp, M.D., 2008. Tree thinking for all biology: the problem with reading phylogenies as ladders of progress, BioEssays 30, 854–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rigato, E., Minelli, A., 2013. The great chain of being is still there. Evol. Educ. Outreach 6, 18.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Zachos, F.E., 2015. Species concepts and species delimitation in mammals. In: Zachos, F.E., Asher, R. (Eds.), Mammalian Evolution, Diversity and Systematics. Handbook of Zoology, Mammalia Series. DeGruyter, Berlin, ISBN 978–3-11-027590-2 (in press).Google Scholar
  17. 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., 2013a. Species inflation and taxonomic artefacts - a critical comment on recent trends in mammalian classification. Mammal. Biol. 78, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zachos, F.E., Clutton-Brock, T.H., Festa-Bianchet, M., Lovari, S., Macdonald, D.W., Schaller, G.B., 2013b. Species splitting puts conservation at risk. Nature 494, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural History Museum ViennaMammal CollectionViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations