Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Type: Editorial
Published: 2020-01-31
Page range: 9–18
Abstract views: 738
PDF downloaded: 408

Taxonomy needs pluralism, but a controlled and manageable one

University of Padova, Department of Biology, via Ugo Bassi 58 B, I-35131 Padova, Italy.
##plugins.generic.jatsParser.article.authorBio##
×

ALESSANDRO MINELLI

Department of Biology, Professor of Zoology (rtired)
classification dark taxa hybridogenetic taxa megajournal MOTU nomenclature open nomenclature provisionally circumscribed taxa species concepts taxonomic concept

Abstract

What we accept as the units to be classified is not just an expression of our current aims and  practices but will also impact further classificatory research. The launch of Megataxa invites a dispassionate discussion about the units to be classified and the names associated to them. Specifically, we must address three challenges.—Challenge 1. Living with pluralism in biological classifications. Despite the enormous amount of ink spent on this issue, there is little hope of finding a species concept at the same time satisfactory from a theoretical point of view and reliable as a guide for taxonomic practice. This unavoidably causes a degree of pluralism in biological classification, as the taxonomic units generally described as species are not necessarily comparable. Also, different users of classification may have different expectations, better satisfied by alternative solutions rather than by a consensus classification. The obvious tension between these different expectations cannot be easily solved by authority or consensus, or simply hoping in the future availability of better criteria for species delimitation. - Challenge 2. Managing multiple classifications within one nomenclature system. Changing taxonomy is the source of ambiguity in the meaning of species names. As a consequence, Linnaean names may not be unique and universal labels for the taxa we recognize. The problem can be solved by specifying taxonomic concepts, i.e. by associating the names to the contexts in which these are used.—Challenge 3. Managing the nomenclature for provisionally circumscribed taxa. Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units (MOTUs) do not correspond necessarily to conventional taxonomic species and no simple or universal rule exists to ‘translate’ MOTUs into Linnaean species. Provisionally recognized MOTUs do not get a Linnaean name, but are labelled with a formula, in too many cases following no acknowledged standard and thus becoming useless for communication purposes. Non-Linnaean names, or formulas, for provisionally circumscribed taxa cannot be rejected, but some international consensus is needed.

 

References

  1. AmphibiaWeb (1999) Pelophylax esculentus: Edible Frog. University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Available from: http://amphibiaweb.org/species/5029 (Accessed Nov 24, 2019).

    Bengtson, P. (1988) Open nomenclature. Palaeontology, 31 (1), 223–227.

    Berendsohn, W.G. (1995) The concept of “potential taxa” in databases. Taxon, 44 (2), 207–212.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1222443

    Berger, L. (1968) Morphology of the F1 generation of various crosses within Rana esculenta-complex. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia, 13, 301–324.

    Berger, L. (1983) Western Palearctic water frogs (Amphibia, Ranidae): systematics, genetics and population compositions. Experientia, 39, 127–130.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01958859

    Bickford, D., Lohman, D.J., Sodhi, N.S., Ng, P.K.L., Meier, R., Winker, K., Ingram, K.K. & Das, I. (2007) Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22 (3), 148–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.004

    Blaxter, M., Mann, J., Chapman, T., Thomas, F., Whitton, C., Robin Floyd, R. & Abebe, E. (2005) Defining operational taxonomic units using DNA barcode data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences, 360, 1935–1943.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1725

    Cain, A.J. (1954) Animal Species and Their Evolution. Hutchinson University Library, London, ix+11–190 pp.

    Collins, R.A. & Cruickshank, R.H. (2012) The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources, 13 (6), 969-975.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12046

    Conix, S. (2019) Radical pluralism, classificatory norms and the legitimacy of species classifications. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 73, 27–34.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2018.11.002

    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?’. Systematic Biology, 63 (5), 819–832.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu003

    Coyne, J.A. & Orr, H.A. (2004) Speciation. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, xiii+545 pp.

    Cracraft, J. (1992) The species of the birds-of-paradise (Paradisaeidae): Applying the phylogenetic species concept to a complex pattern of diversification. Cladistics, 8 (1), 1–43.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.1992.tb00049.x

    Cracraft, J. (1983) Species concepts and speciation analysis. In: Johnston, R.F. (Ed.) Current Ornithology, 1. Plenum, New York, pp. 159–187.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6781-3_6

    Cracraft, J., Feinstein, J., Vaughn, J. & Helm-Bychowski, K. (1998) Sorting out tigers (Panthera tigris): mitochondrial sequences, nuclear inserts, systematics, and conservation genetics. Animal Conservation, 1 (2), 139–150.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.1998.tb00021.x

    Davis, P.H. & Heywood, V.H. (1963) Principles of angiosperm taxonomy. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, xx+556 pp.

    de Araújo Costa, D., de Assis da Silva, F., Christoffersen, M.L. & Furtado, G.D. (2017) Lizardia capricornia new status (Polychaeta, Hesionidae), including morphological data and biogeographic notes. Revista de Ciências da Saúde Nova Esperança, 15 (2), 5–10.

    https://doi.org/10.17695/issn.2317-7160.v15n2a2017p5-10

    de Queiroz, K. & Gauthier, J. (1990) Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology, 39 (4), 307–322.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2992353

    de Queiroz, K. (1988) Systematics and the Darwinian revolution. Philosophy of Science, 55 (2), 238–259.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/289430

    Donoghue, M.J. & Gauthier, J.A. (2004) Implementing the PhyloCode. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19 (6), 281–282.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.004

    Dubois, A. & Günther, R. (1982) Klepton and synklepton: Two new evolutionary systematics categories in zoology. Zoologische Jahrbücher. Abteilung für Systematik, Ökologie und Geographie, 109, 290–305.

    Dubois, A. (1982) Notes sur les grenouilles vertes (groupe de Rana kl. esculenta Linné, 1758) I. Introduction. Alytes, 1, 42–49.

    Ereshefsky, M. (1992) Eliminative pluralism. Philosophy of Science, 59 (4), 671–690.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/289701

    Ereshefsky, M. (2001) The poverty of the linnaean hierarchy: A philosophical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, x+316 pp.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498459

    Félix, M.-A., Braendle, C. & Cutter, A.D. (2014) A streamlined system for species diagnosis in Caenorhabditis (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) with name designations for 15 distinct biological species. PLoS ONE, 9 (4), e94723.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094723

    Floyd, R., Eyualem, A., Papert, A. & Blaxter, M. (2002) Molecular barcodes for soil nematode identification. Molecular Ecology, 11 (4), 839–850.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01485.x

    Frankham, R., Ballou, J.D., Dudash, M.R., Eldridge, M.D.B., Fenster, C.B., Lacy, R.C., Mendelson J.R. III, Porton, I.J., Ralls, K. & Ryder, O.A. (2012) Implications of different species concepts for conserving biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 153, 25–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.034

    Frost, D.R. (2019) Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 6.0. American Museum of Natural History, New York. http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html (Accessed 24 Nov. 2019)

    Ghiselin, M.T. (1984) Narrow approaches to phylogeny: A review of nine books on cladism. In: Dawkins, R. & Ridley, M. (Eds.), Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 209–222.

    Ghiselin, M.T. (1987) Species concepts, individuality, and objectivity. Biology & Philosophy, 2 (2), 127–143.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00057958

    Gippoliti, S., Cotterill, F.P.D. & Groves, C. (2013) Mammal taxonomy without taxonomists: a reply to Zachos and Lovari. Hystrix, 24, 3–5.

    https://doi:10.4404/hystrix-24.1-8881

    Griffiths, G.C.D. (1974) On the foundations of biological systematics. Acta Biotheoretica, 23, 85–131.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01556343

    Griffiths, G.C.D. (1976) The future of Linnaean nomenclature. Systematic Zoology, 25 (2), 168–173.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2412743

    Groves, C. & Grubb, P. (2011) Ungulate Taxonomy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, ix+317 pp.

    Heller, R., Frandsen, P., Lorenzen, E.D. & Siegismund, H.R. (2013) Are there really twice as many bovid species as we thought? Systematic Biology, 62 (5), 490–493.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt033

    Hull, D.L. (1987) Genealogical actors in ecological roles. Biology & Philosophy, 2 (2), 168–184.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00057961

    International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th ed.). The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, xxix+271 pp.

    Kiontke, K.C., Félix, M.-A., Ailion, M., Rockman, M.V., Braendle, C., Pénigault, J.-B. & Fitch, D.H.A. (2011) A phylogeny and molecular barcodes for Caenorhabditis, with numerous new species from rotting fruits. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 11, 339.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-11-339

    Kitcher, P. (1984) Species. Philosophy of Science, 51 (2), 308–333.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/289182

    Korshunova, T., Martynov, A., Bakken, T. & Picton, B. (2017) External diversity is restrained by internal conservatism: new nudibranch mollusc contributes to the cryptic species problem. Zoologica Scripta, 46 (6), 683–692.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12253

    LaPorte, J. (2007) In defense of species. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38 (1), 255–269.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.12.013

    Leavitt, S.D., Divakar, P.K, Crespo, A. & Lumbsch, H.T. (2016) A matter of time - understanding the limits of the power of molecular data for delimiting species boundaries. Herzogia, 29 (2), 479–492.

    https://doi.org/10.13158/heia.29.2.2016.479

    Leavitt, S.D., Esslinger, T.L., Divakar, P.K. & Lumbsch, H.T. (2012) Miocene divergence, phenotypically cryptic lineages, and contrasting distribution patterns in common lichen-forming fungi (Ascomycota: Parmeliaceae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 107 (4), 920–937.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01978.x

    Leavitt, S.D., Esslinger, T.L., Spribille, T., Divakar, P.K. & Lumbsch, H.T. (2013) Multilocus phylogeny of the lichen-forming fungal genus Melanohalea (Parmeliaceae, Ascomycota): Insights on diversity, distributions, and a comparison of species tree and concatenated topologies. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 66 (1), 138–152.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2012.09.013

    Leavitt, S.D., Johnson L.A., Goward T. & St. Clair L.L. (2011) Species delimitation in taxonomically difficult lichenforming fungi: an example from morphologically and chemically diverse Xanthoparmelia (Parmeliaceae) in North America. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 60(3), 317–332.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.05.012

    Lepage, D. (2019) Avibase-the World Bird Database. http://aviba se.bsc-eoc.org (Accessed July 30, 2019).

    Lepage, D., Vaidya, G. & Guralnick, R. (2014) Avibase-A database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts. ZooKeys, 420, 117–135.

    https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.420.7089

    Linnaeus, C. (1758) Systema naturæ per regna tria naturæ, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis, Editio X. 1. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm, [II]+683+[1] pp.

    https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.542

    Lumbsch, H.T., Ahti, T., Altermann, S., De Paz, G.A., Aptroot, A., Arup, U., Pena, A.B., Bawingan, P.A., Benatti, M.N., Betancourt, L., Bjork, C.R., Boonpragob, K., Brand, M., Bungartz, F., Caceres, M.E.S., Candan, M., Chaves, J.L., Clerc, P., Common, R., Coppins, B.J., Crespo, A., Dal-Forno, M., Divakar, P.K., Duya, M.V., Elix, J.A., Elvebakk, A., Fankhauser, J.D., Farkas, E., Ferraro, L.I., Fischer, E., Galloway, D.J., Gaya, E., Giralt, M., Goward, T., Grube, M., Hafellner, J., Hernandez, J.E., Campos, M.D.H., Kalb, K., Karnefelt, I., Kantvilas, G., Killmann, D., Kirika, P., Knudsen, K., Komposch, H., Kondratyuk, S., Lawrey, J.D., Mangold, A., Marcelli, M.P., Mccune, B., Messuti, M.I., Michlig, A., Gonzalez, R.M., Moncada, B., Naikatini, A., Nelsen, M.P., Ovstedal, D.O., Palice, Z., Papong, K., Parnmen, S., Perez-Ortega, S., Printzen, C., Rico, V.J., Plata, E.R., Robayo, J., Rosabal, D., Ruprecht, U., Allen, N.S., Sancho, L., De_Jesus, L.S., Vieira, T.S., Schultz, M., Seaward, M.R.D., Serusiaux, E., Schmitt, I., Sipman, H.J.M., Sohrabi, M., Sochting, U., Sogaard, M.Z., Sparrius, L.B., Spielmann, A., Spribille, T., Sutjaritturakan, J., Thammathaworn, A., Thell, A., Thor, G., Thus, H., Timdal, E., Truong, C., Turk, R., Tenorio, L.U., Upreti, D.K., Van den Boom, P., Rebuelta, M.V., Wedin, M., Will-Wolf, S., Wirth, V., Wirtz, N., Yahr, R., Yeshitela, K., Ziemmeck, F., Wheeler, T. & Lucking R. (2011) One hundred new species of lichenized fungi: a signature of undiscovered global diversity. Phytotaxa, 18, 1–127.

    https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.18.1.1

    Matthews, S.C. (1973) Notes on open nomenclature and on synonymy lists. Palaeontology, 16 (4), 713-719.

    Mayr, E. (1987) The ontological status of species: Scientific progress and philosophical terminology. BioIogy & Philosophy, 2 (2), 145–166.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00057959

    Mazak J.H. & Groves, C.P. (2006) A taxonomic revision of tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia. Mammalian Biology, 71 (5), 268–287.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2006.02.007

    Minelli, A. (1991) Names for the system and names for the classification. In: Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.) Improving the stability of names: Needs and options (Regnum Vegetabile No. 123), Koeltz, Konigstein, pp. 183–189.

    Minelli, A. (2017a) Grey nomenclature needs rules. Ecologica Montenegrina, 7, 656–666.

    Minelli, A. (2017b) Updating taxonomic practice to cope with challenges from within and without the discipline. Biodiversity Journal, 8(1), 671–674.

    Minelli, A. (2019) The galaxy of the non-Linnaean nomenclature. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 41, 31.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-019-0271-0

    Mishler, B. (1999) Getting rid of species? In: Wilson, R.A. (Ed.) Species: New interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 307–315.

    Mishler, B., & Donoghue, M. (1982) Species concepts: A case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology, 31 (4), 491–503.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/31.4.491

    Morard, R., Escarguel, G., Weiner, A.K., André, A., Douady, C.J., Wade, C.M., Darling, K.F., Ujiié, Y., Seears, H.A., Quillévéré, F., de Garidel-Thoron, T., de Vargas, C. & Kucera, M. (2016) Nomenclature for the nameless: A proposal for an integrative molecular taxonomy of cryptic diversity exemplified by planktonic Foraminifera. Systematic Biology, 65 (5), 925–940.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw031

    O’Hara, R. (1993) Systematic generalization, historical fate, and the species problem. Systematic Biology, 42 (3), 231–246.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/42.3.231

    Pante, E., Schoelinck, C. & Puillandre, N. (2015) From integrative taxonomy to species description: one step beyond. Systematic Biology, 64 (1), 152–160.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu083

    Pérez-Ponce de León, G. & Nadler, S.A. (2010) What we don’t recognize can hurt us: A plea for awareness about cryptic species. Journal of Parasitology, 96, 453–464.

    https://doi.org/10.1645/GE-2260.1

    Pleijel, F. & Rouse, G.W. (1999) Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: a new taxonomic concept for biology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 267, 627–630.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1048

    Pleijel, F. & Rouse, G.W. (2000) A new taxon, capricornia (Hesionidae, Polychaeta), illustrating the LITU (‘least-inclusive taxonomic unit’) concept. Zoologica Scripta, 29, 157–168.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1463-6409.2000.00041.x

    Pleijel, F. (1999) Phylogenetic taxonomy, a farewell to species, and a revision of Heteropodarke (Hesionidae, Polychaeta, Annelida). Systematic Biology, 48 (4), 755–789.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/106351599260003

    Richter, R. (1948) Einführung in die Zoologische Nomenklatur durch Erläuterung der Internationalen Regeln. 2nd ed. Waldemar Kramer. Frankfurt, 252 pp.

    Riedel A., Sagata K., Surbatki S., Tänzler R. & Balke M. (2013) One hundred and one new species of Trigonopterus weevils from New Guinea. ZooKeys, 280, 1–150.

    https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.280.3906

    Riedel, A. & Narakusumo, R.P. (2019) One hundred and three new species of Trigonopterus weevils from Sulawesi. ZooKeys, 828, 1–153.

    https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.828.32200

    Rieppel, O. (2010) Species monophyly. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 48, 1–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2009.00545.x

    Rohland, N., Reich, D., Mallick, S., Meyer, M., Green, R.E., Georgiadis, N.J., Roca, A.L. & Hofreiter, M. (2010) Genomic DNA sequences from mastodon and woolly mammoth reveal deep speciation of forest and savanna elephants. PLoS Biology, 8 (12), e1000564.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000564

    Samyn, Y. & De Clerck, O. (2012) No name, no game. European Journal of Taxonomy, 10, 1–3.

    https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2012.10

    Schindel, D.E. & Miller, S.E. (2010) Provisional nomenclature: The on-ramp to taxonomic names. In: Polaszek, A. (Ed.), Systema naturae 250: The Linnaean Ark. CRC, Boca Raton, pp. 109–115.

    https://doi.org/10.1201/EBK1420095012-c10

    Schultz, R.J. (1969) Hybridization, unisexuality and polyploidy in the teleost Poeciliopsis (Poecilidae) and other vertebrates. American Naturalist, 108 (934), 605–619.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/282629

    Sigovini, M., Keppel, E. & Tagliapietra, D. (2016) Open nomenclature in the biodiversity era. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7 (10), 1217–1225.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12594

    Spolsky, C.M. & Uzzell, T. (1986) Evolutionary history of the hybridogenetic hybrid frog Rana esculenta as deduced from mtDNA analyses. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 3 (1), 44–56.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040376

    Struck, T.H., Feder, J.L., Bendiksby, M., Birkeland, S., Cerca, J., Gusarov, V.I., Kistenich, S., Larsson, K.-H.H., Liow, L.H., Nowak, M.D., Stedje, B., Bachmann, L. & Dimitrov, D. (2018) Finding evolutionary processes hidden in cryptic species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 33 (3), 153–163.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.11.007

    Trontelj, P. & Fišer, C. (2009) Cryptic species diversity should not be trivialized. Systematics and Biodiversity, 7 (1), 1–3.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477200008002909

    Wheeler, Q.D. & Platnick, N.I. (2000) The phylogenetic species concept (sensu Wheeler and Platnick). In: Wheeler, Q.D. & Meier, R. (Eds.) Species concepts and phylogenetic theory - a debate. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 55–69.

    Wilkins, J.S. & Ebach, M.C. (2013) The nature of classification: relationships and kinds in the natural sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, x+197 pp.

    Zachos, F.E. & Lovari, S. (2013) Taxonomic inflation and the poverty of the Phylogenetic Species Concept - a reply to Gippoliti and Groves. Hystrix, 24 (2), 142–144.

    https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.1-8849

    Zachos, F.E. (2016) Species concepts in biology. Historical development, theoretical foundations and practical relevance. Springer International Publishing, Cham, xii+220 pp.

    Zachos, F.E. (2018) Mammals and meaningful taxonomic units: the debate about species concepts and conservation. Mammal Review, 48 (3), 153–159.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12121

    Zachos, F.E., Apollonio, M., Barmann, 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. Mammalian Biology, 78 (1), 1–6.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2012.07.083

    Zhang, Z.-Q. (2011) Accelerating biodiversity descriptions and transforming taxonomic publishing: the first decade of Zootaxa. Zootaxa, 2896, 1–7.

    https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2896.1.1