Species

Last updated

Species LifeDomainKingdomPhylumClassOrderFamilyGenusSpecies
The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks. A genus contains one or more species. Intermediate minor rankings are not shown.

In biology, a species (/ˈspiːʃiːz/ // ( Loudspeaker.svg listen )) is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined. While these definitions may seem adequate, when looked at more closely they represent problematic species concepts. For example, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, and in a ring species. Also, among organisms that reproduce only asexually, the concept of a reproductive species breaks down, and each clone is potentially a microspecies.

Biology is the natural science that studies life and living organisms, including their physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution. Despite the complexity of the science, there are certain unifying concepts that consolidate it into a single, coherent field. Biology recognizes the cell as the basic unit of life, genes as the basic unit of heredity, and evolution as the engine that propels the creation and extinction of species. Living organisms are open systems that survive by transforming energy and decreasing their local entropy to maintain a stable and vital condition defined as homeostasis.

Taxonomic rank Level in a taxonomic hierarchy

In biological classification, taxonomic rank is the relative level of a group of organisms in a taxonomic hierarchy. Examples of taxonomic ranks are species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain, etc.

Organism Any individual living physical entity

In biology, an organism is any individual entity that exhibits the properties of life. It is a synonym for "life form".

Contents

All species (except viruses) are given a two-part name, a "binomial". The first part of a binomial is the genus to which the species belongs. The second part is called the specific name or the specific epithet (in botanical nomenclature, also sometimes in zoological nomenclature). For example, Boa constrictor is one of four species of the genus Boa .

Binomial nomenclature, also called binominal nomenclature or binary nomenclature, is a formal system of naming species of living things by giving each a name composed of two parts, both of which use Latin grammatical forms, although they can be based on words from other languages. Such a name is called a binomial name, a binomen, binominal name or a scientific name; more informally it is also called a Latin name. The first part of the name – the generic name – identifies the genus to which the species belongs, while the second part – the specific name or specific epithet – identifies the species within the genus. For example, humans belong to the genus Homo and within this genus to the species Homo sapiens. Tyrannosaurus rex is probably the most widely known binomial. The formal introduction of this system of naming species is credited to Carl Linnaeus, effectively beginning with his work Species Plantarum in 1753. But Gaspard Bauhin, in as early as 1623, had introduced in his book Pinax theatri botanici many names of genera that were later adopted by Linnaeus.

A genus is a taxonomic rank used in the biological classification of living and fossil organisms, as well as viruses, in biology. In the hierarchy of biological classification, genus comes above species and below family. In binomial nomenclature, the genus name forms the first part of the binomial species name for each species within the genus.

In zoological nomenclature, the specific name is the second part within the scientific name of a species. The first part of the name of a species is the name of the genus or the generic name. The rules and regulations governing the giving of a new species name are explained in the article species description.

None of these is entirely satisfactory definitions, but scientists and conservationists need a species definition which allows them to work, regardless of the theoretical difficulties. If species were fixed and clearly distinct from one another, there would be no problem, but evolutionary processes cause species to change continually, and to grade into one another.

Conservation may refer to the preservation or efficient use of resources, or the conservation of various quantities under physical laws.

Evolution Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules.

Species were seen from the time of Aristotle until the 18th century as fixed kinds that could be arranged in a hierarchy, the great chain of being. In the 19th century, biologists grasped that species could evolve given sufficient time. Charles Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species explained how species could arise by natural selection. That understanding was greatly extended in the 20th century through genetics and population ecology. Genetic variability arises from mutations and recombination, while organisms themselves are mobile, leading to geographical isolation and genetic drift with varying selection pressures. Genes can sometimes be exchanged between species by horizontal gene transfer; new species can arise rapidly through hybridisation and polyploidy; and species may become extinct for a variety of reasons. Viruses are a special case, driven by a balance of mutation and selection, and can be treated as quasispecies.

Aristotle philosopher in ancient Greece

Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher and scientist born in the city of Stagira, Chalkidiki, Greece. Along with Plato, he is considered the "Father of Western Philosophy". Aristotle provided a complex and harmonious synthesis of the various existing philosophies prior to him, including those of Socrates and Plato, and it was above all from his teachings that the West inherited its fundamental intellectual lexicon, as well as problems and methods of inquiry. As a result, his philosophy has exerted a unique influence on almost every form of knowledge in the West and it continues to be central to the contemporary philosophical discussion.

Great chain of being

The Great Chain of Being is a hierarchical structure of all matter and life, thought in medieval Christianity to have been decreed by God. The chain starts with God and progresses downward to angels, demons, stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, commoners, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals and other minerals.

Charles Darwin British naturalist, author of "On the origin of species, by means of natural selection"

Charles Robert Darwin, was an English naturalist, geologist and biologist, best known for his contributions to the science of evolution. His proposition that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors is now widely accepted, and considered a foundational concept in science. In a joint publication with Alfred Russel Wallace, he introduced his scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding.

Definition

Biologists and taxonomists have made many attempts to define species, beginning from morphology and moving towards genetics. Early taxonomists such as Linnaeus had no option but to describe what they saw: this was later formalised as the typological or morphological species concept. Ernst Mayr emphasised reproductive isolation, but this, like other species concepts, is hard or even impossible to test. [1] [2] Later biologists have tried to refine Mayr's definition with the recognition and cohesion concepts, among others. [3] Many of the concepts are quite similar or overlap, so they are not easy to count: the biologist R. L. Mayden recorded about 24 concepts, [4] and the philosopher of science John Wilkins counted 26. [1] Wilkins further grouped the species concepts into seven basic kinds of concepts: (1) agamospecies for asexual organisms (2) biospecies for reproductively isolated sexual organisms (3) ecospecies based on ecological niches (4) evolutionary species based on lineage (5) genetic species based on gene pool (6) morphospecies based on form or phenotype and (7) taxonomic species, a species as determined by a taxonomist. [5]

Morphology (biology) In biology, the form and structure of organisms

Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.

Genetics Science of genes, heredity, and variation in living organisms

Genetics is a branch of biology concerned with the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in organisms.

Ernst Mayr German-American evolutionary biologist

Ernst Walter Mayr was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists. He was also a renowned taxonomist, tropical explorer, ornithologist, philosopher of biology, and historian of science. His work contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept.

Typological or morphological species

All adult Eurasian blue tits share the same coloration, unmistakably identifying the morphospecies. Eurasian blue tit Lancashire.jpg
All adult Eurasian blue tits share the same coloration, unmistakably identifying the morphospecies.

A typological species is a group of organisms in which individuals conform to certain fixed properties (a type), so that even pre-literate people often recognise the same taxon as do modern taxonomists. [7] [8] The clusters of variations or phenotypes within specimens (such as longer or shorter tails) would differentiate the species. This method was used as a "classical" method of determining species, such as with Linnaeus early in evolutionary theory. However, different phenotypes are not necessarily different species (e.g. a four-winged Drosophila born to a two-winged mother is not a different species). Species named in this manner are called morphospecies. [9] [10]

<i>Drosophila</i> genus of insects

Drosophila is a genus of flies, belonging to the family Drosophilidae, whose members are often called "small fruit flies" or pomace flies, vinegar flies, or wine flies, a reference to the characteristic of many species to linger around overripe or rotting fruit. They should not be confused with the Tephritidae, a related family, which are also called fruit flies ; tephritids feed primarily on unripe or ripe fruit, with many species being regarded as destructive agricultural pests, especially the Mediterranean fruit fly. One species of Drosophila in particular, D. melanogaster, has been heavily used in research in genetics and is a common model organism in developmental biology. The terms "fruit fly" and "Drosophila" are often used synonymously with D. melanogaster in modern biological literature. The entire genus, however, contains more than 1,500 species and is very diverse in appearance, behavior, and breeding habitat.

In the 1970s, Robert R. Sokal, Theodore J. Crovello and Peter Sneath proposed a variation on this, a phenetic species, defined as a set of organisms with a similar phenotype to each other, but a different phenotype from other sets of organisms. [11] It differs from the morphological species concept in including a numerical measure of distance or similarity to cluster entities based on multivariate comparisons of a reasonably large number of phenotypic traits. [12]

Recognition and cohesion species

A mate-recognition species is a group of sexually reproducing organisms that recognize one another as potential mates. [13] [14] Expanding on this to allow for post-mating isolation, a cohesion species is the most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms; no matter whether populations can hybridize successfully, they are still distinct cohesion species if the amount of hybridization is insufficient to completely mix their respective gene pools. [15] A further development of the recognition concept is provided by the biosemiotic concept of species. [16]

Genetic similarity and barcode species

A region of the gene for the cytochrome c oxidase enzyme is used to distinguish species in the Barcode of Life Data Systems database. Cytochrome C Oxidase 1OCC in Membrane 2.png
A region of the gene for the cytochrome c oxidase enzyme is used to distinguish species in the Barcode of Life Data Systems database.

In microbiology, genes can move freely even between distantly related bacteria, possibly extending to the whole bacterial domain. As a rule of thumb, microbiologists have assumed that kinds of Bacteria or Archaea with 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequences more similar than 97% to each other need to be checked by DNA-DNA hybridisation to decide if they belong to the same species or not. [17] This concept was narrowed in 2006 to a similarity of 98.7%. [18]

DNA-DNA hybridisation is outdated, and results have sometimes led to misleading conclusions about species, as with the pomarine and great skua. [19] [20] Modern approaches compare sequence similarity using computational methods. [21]

DNA barcoding has been proposed as a way to distinguish species suitable even for non-specialists to use. [22] The so-called barcode is a region of mitochondrial DNA within the gene for cytochrome c oxidase. A database, Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) contains DNA barcode sequences from over 190,000 species. [23] [24] However, scientists such as Rob DeSalle have expressed concern that classical taxonomy and DNA barcoding, which they consider a misnomer, need to be reconciled, as they delimit species differently. [25] Genetic introgression mediated by endosymbionts and other vectors can further make barcodes ineffective in the identification of species. [26]

Phylogenetic, cladistic, or evolutionary species

The cladistic or phylogenetic species concept is that a species is the smallest lineage which is distinguished by a unique set of either genetic or morphological traits. No claim is made about reproductive isolation, making the concept useful also in palaeontology where only fossil evidence is available. Cladistic species.svg
The cladistic or phylogenetic species concept is that a species is the smallest lineage which is distinguished by a unique set of either genetic or morphological traits. No claim is made about reproductive isolation, making the concept useful also in palaeontology where only fossil evidence is available.

A phylogenetic or cladistic species is an evolutionarily divergent lineage, one that has maintained its hereditary integrity through time and space. [27] [28] [29] A cladistic species is the smallest group of populations that can be distinguished by a unique set of morphological or genetic traits. Molecular markers may be used to determine genetic similarities in the nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of various species. [28] [30] [31] For example, in a study done on fungi, studying the nucleotide characters using cladistic species produced the most accurate results in recognising the numerous fungi species of all the concepts studied. [31] [32] Versions of the Phylogenetic Species Concept may emphasize monophyly or diagnosability. [33]

Unlike the Biological Species Concept, a cladistic species does not rely on reproductive isolation, so it is independent of processes that are integral in other concepts. [30] It works for asexual lineages, and can detect recent divergences, which the Morphological Species Concept cannot. [28] [31] However, it does not work in every situation, and may require more than one polymorphic locus to give an accurate result. [31] The concept may lead to splitting of existing species, for example of Bovidae, into many new ones. [34] [35] [36]

An evolutionary species, suggested by George Gaylord Simpson in 1951, is "an entity composed of organisms which maintains its identity from other such entities through time and over space, and which has its own independent evolutionary fate and historical tendencies". [4] [37] This differs from the biological species concept in embodying persistence over time. Wiley and Mayden state that they see the evolutionary species concept as "identical" to Willi Hennig's species-as-lineages concept, and assert that the biological species concept, "the several versions" of the phylogenetic species concept, and the idea that species are of the same kind as higher taxa are not suitable for biodiversity studies (with the intention of estimating the number of species accurately). They further suggest that the concept works for both asexual and sexually-reproducing species. [38]

Ecological species

An ecological species is a set of organisms adapted to a particular set of resources, called a niche, in the environment. According to this concept, populations form the discrete phenetic clusters that we recognise as species because the ecological and evolutionary processes controlling how resources are divided up tend to produce those clusters. [39]

Genetic species

A genetic species as defined by Robert Baker and Robert Bradley is a set of genetically isolated interbreeding populations. This is similar to Mayr's Biological Species Concept, but stresses genetic rather than reproductive isolation. [40] In the 21st century, a genetic species can be established by comparing DNA sequences, but other methods were available earlier, such as comparing karyotypes (sets of chromosomes) and allozymes (enzyme variants). [41]

Evolutionarily significant unit

An evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) or "wildlife species" [42] is a population of organisms considered distinct for purposes of conservation. [43]

Chronospecies

A chronospecies is defined in a single lineage (solid line) whose morphology changes with time. At some point, palaeontologists judge that enough change has occurred that two species (A and B), separated in time and anatomy, once existed. Chronospecies.svg
A chronospecies is defined in a single lineage (solid line) whose morphology changes with time. At some point, palaeontologists judge that enough change has occurred that two species (A and B), separated in time and anatomy, once existed.

In palaeontology, with only comparative anatomy (morphology) from fossils as evidence, the concept of a chronospecies can be applied. During anagenesis (evolution, not necessarily involving branching), palaeontologists seek to identify a sequence of species, each one derived from the phyletically extinct one before through continuous, slow and more or less uniform change. In such a time sequence, palaeontologists assess how much change is required for a morphologically distinct form to be considered a different species from its ancestors. [44] [45] [46] [47]

Viral quasispecies

Viruses have enormous populations, are doubtfully living since they consist of little more than a string of DNA or RNA in a protein coat, and mutate rapidly. All of these factors make conventional species concepts largely inapplicable. [48] A viral quasispecies is a group of genotypes related by similar mutations, competing within a highly mutagenic environment, and hence governed by a mutation–selection balance. It is predicted that a viral quasispecies at a low but evolutionarily neutral and highly connected (that is, flat) region in the fitness landscape will outcompete a quasispecies located at a higher but narrower fitness peak in which the surrounding mutants are unfit, "the quasispecies effect" or the "survival of the flattest". There is no suggestion that a viral quasispecies resembles a traditional biological species. [49] [50] [51]

Taxonomy and naming

A cougar, mountain lion, panther, or puma, among other common names: its scientific name is Puma concolor. Mountain-lion-01623.jpg
A cougar, mountain lion, panther, or puma, among other common names: its scientific name is Puma concolor .

Common and scientific names

The commonly used names for kinds of organisms are often ambiguous: "cat" could mean the domestic cat, Felis catus , or the cat family, Felidae. Another problem with common names is that they often vary from place to place, so that puma, cougar, catamount, panther, painter and mountain lion all mean Puma concolor in various parts of America, while "panther" may also mean the jaguar (Panthera onca) of Latin America or the leopard (Panthera pardus) of Africa and Asia. In contrast, the scientific names of species are chosen to be unique and universal; they are in two parts used together: the genus as in Puma, and the specific epithet as in concolor. [52] [53]

Species description

The type specimen (holotype) of Lacerta plica, described by Linnaeus in 1758 Lacerta plica holotype - ZooKeys-355-049-g005.jpg
The type specimen (holotype) of Lacerta plica , described by Linnaeus in 1758

A species is given a taxonomic name when a type specimen is described formally, in a publication that assigns it a unique scientific name. The description typically provides means for identifying the new species, differentiating it from other previously described and related or confusable species and provides a validly published name (in botany) or an available name (in zoology) when the paper is accepted for publication. The type material is usually held in a permanent repository, often the research collection of a major museum or university, that allows independent verification and the means to compare specimens. [54] [55] [56] Describers of new species are asked to choose names that, in the words of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, are "appropriate, compact, euphonious, memorable, and do not cause offence". [57]

Abbreviations

Books and articles sometimes intentionally do not identify species fully and use the abbreviation "sp." in the singular or "spp." (standing for species pluralis, the Latin for multiple species) in the plural in place of the specific name or epithet (e.g. Canis sp.). This commonly occurs when authors are confident that some individuals belong to a particular genus but are not sure to which exact species they belong, as is common in paleontology. Authors may also use "spp." as a short way of saying that something applies to many species within a genus, but not to all. If scientists mean that something applies to all species within a genus, they use the genus name without the specific name or epithet. The names of genera and species are usually printed in italics. Abbreviations such as "sp." should not be italicised. When a species identity is not clear a specialist may use "cf." before the epithet to indicate that confirmation is required. The abbreviations "nr." (near) or "aff." (affine) may be used when the identity is unclear but when the species appears to be similar to the species mentioned after. [58]

Identification codes

With the rise of online databases, codes have been devised to provide identifiers for species that are already defined, including:

Lumping and splitting

The naming of a particular species, including which genus (and higher taxa) it is placed in, is a hypothesis about the evolutionary relationships and distinguishability of that group of organisms. As further information comes to hand, the hypothesis may be confirmed or refuted. Sometimes, especially in the past when communication was more difficult, taxonomists working in isolation have given two distinct names to individual organisms later identified as the same species. When two named species are discovered to be of the same species, the older species name is given priority and usually retained, and the newer name considered as a junior synonym, a process called synonymisation. Dividing a taxon into multiple, often new, taxa is called splitting. Taxonomists are often referred to as "lumpers" or "splitters" by their colleagues, depending on their personal approach to recognising differences or commonalities between organisms. [63] [64] [58]

Broad and narrow senses

The nomenclatural codes that guide the naming of species, including the ICZN for animals and the ICN for plants, do not make rules for defining the boundaries of the species. Research can change the boundaries, also known as circumscription, based on new evidence. Species may then need to be distinguished by the boundary definitions used, and in such cases the names may be qualified with sensu stricto ("in the narrow sense") to denote usage in the exact meaning given by an author such as the person who named the species, while the antonym sensu lato ("in the broad sense") denotes a wider usage, for instance including other subspecies. Other abbreviations such as "auct." ("author"), and qualifiers such as "non" ("not") may be used to further clarify the sense in which the specified authors delineated or described the species. [58] [65] [66]

Mayr's biological species concept

Ernst Mayr proposed the widely used Biological Species Concept of reproductive isolation in 1942. Ernst Mayr PLoS.jpg
Ernst Mayr proposed the widely used Biological Species Concept of reproductive isolation in 1942.

Most modern textbooks make use of Ernst Mayr's 1942 definition, [67] [68] known as the Biological Species Concept as a basis for further discussion on the definition of species. It is also called a reproductive or isolation concept. This defines a species as [69]

groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. [69]

It has been argued that this definition is a natural consequence of the effect of sexual reproduction on the dynamics of natural selection. [70] [71] [72] [73] Mayr's use of the adjective "potentially" has been a point of debate; some interpretations exclude unusual or artificial matings that occur only in captivity, or that involve animals capable of mating but that do not normally do so in the wild. [69]

The species problem

It is difficult to define a species in a way that applies to all organisms. [74] The debate about species delimitation is called the species problem. [69] [75] [76] [77] The problem was recognized even in 1859, when Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species :

No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation. [78]

When Mayr's concept breaks down

Palaeontologists are limited to morphological evidence when deciding whether fossil life-forms like these Inoceramus bivalves formed a separate species. Inoceramus cripsii Creta sup Bergamo.JPG
Palaeontologists are limited to morphological evidence when deciding whether fossil life-forms like these Inoceramus bivalves formed a separate species.

A simple textbook definition, following Mayr's concept, works well for most multi-celled organisms, but breaks down in several situations:

Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus.jpg
Common Chiff-Chaff - Italy S4E1681 (19081363189) (cropped).jpg
The willow warbler and chiffchaff are almost identical in appearance but do not interbreed.

Species identification is made difficult by discordance between molecular and morphological investigations; these can be categorized as two types: (i) one morphology, multiple lineages (e.g. morphological convergence, cryptic species) and (ii) one lineage, multiple morphologies (e.g. phenotypic plasticity, multiple life-cycle stages). [88] In addition, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) makes it difficult to define a species. [89] All species definitions assume that an organism acquires its genes from one or two parents very like the "daughter" organism, but that is not what happens in HGT. [90] There is strong evidence of HGT between very dissimilar groups of prokaryotes, and at least occasionally between dissimilar groups of eukaryotes, [89] including some crustaceans and echinoderms. [91]

The evolutionary biologist James Mallet concludes that

there is no easy way to tell whether related geographic or temporal forms belong to the same or different species. Species gaps can be verified only locally and at a point of time. One is forced to admit that Darwin's insight is correct: any local reality or integrity of species is greatly reduced over large geographic ranges and time periods. [15]

Aggregates of microspecies

The species concept is further weakened by the existence of microspecies, groups of organisms, including many plants, with very little genetic variability, usually forming species aggregates. [92] For example, the dandelion Taraxacum officinale and the blackberry Rubus fruticosus are aggregates with many microspecies—perhaps 400 in the case of the blackberry and over 200 in the dandelion, [93] complicated by hybridisation, apomixis and polyploidy, making gene flow between populations difficult to determine, and their taxonomy debatable. [94] [95] [96] Species complexes occur in insects such as Heliconius butterflies, [97] vertebrates such as Hypsiboas treefrogs, [98] and fungi such as the fly agaric. [99]

Hybridisation

Natural hybridisation presents a challenge to the concept of a reproductively isolated species, as fertile hybrids permit gene flow between two populations. For example, the carrion crow Corvus corone and the hooded crow Corvus cornix appear and are classified as separate species, yet they hybridise freely where their geographical ranges overlap. [100]

Ring species

A ring species is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which can sexually interbreed with adjacent related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" population. [101] Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing the ring. Ring species thus present a difficulty for any species concept that relies on reproductive isolation. [102] However, ring species are at best rare. Proposed examples include the herring gull-lesser black-backed gull complex around the North pole, the Ensatina eschscholtzii group of 19 populations of salamanders in America, [103] and the greenish warbler in Asia, [104] but many so-called ring species have turned out to be the result of misclassification leading to questions on whether there really are any ring species. [105] [106] [107] [108]

Change

Species are subject to change, whether by evolving into new species, [109] exchanging genes with other species, [110] merging with other species or by becoming extinct. [111]

Speciation

The evolutionary process by which biological populations evolve to become distinct or reproductively isolated as species is called speciation. [112] [113] Charles Darwin was the first to describe the role of natural selection in speciation in his 1859 book The Origin of Species . [114] Speciation depends on a measure of reproductive isolation, a reduced gene flow. This occurs most easily in allopatric speciation, where populations are separated geographically and can diverge gradually as mutations accumulate. Reproductive isolation is threatened by hybridisation, but this can be selected against once a pair of populations have incompatible alleles of the same gene, as described in the Bateson–Dobzhansky–Muller model. [109] A different mechanism, phyletic speciation, involves one lineage gradually changing over time into a new and distinct form, without increasing the number of resultant species. [115]

Exchange of genes between species

Horizontal gene transfers between widely separated species complicate the phylogeny of bacteria. Tree Of Life (with horizontal gene transfer).svg
Horizontal gene transfers between widely separated species complicate the phylogeny of bacteria.

Horizontal gene transfer between organisms of different species, either through hybridisation, antigenic shift, or reassortment, is sometimes an important source of genetic variation. Viruses can transfer genes between species. Bacteria can exchange plasmids with bacteria of other species, including some apparently distantly related ones in different phylogenetic domains, making analysis of their relationships difficult, and weakening the concept of a bacterial species. [116] [89] [117] [110]

Louis-Marie Bobay and Howard Ochman suggest, based on analysis of the genomes of many types of bacteria, that they can often be grouped "into communities that regularly swap genes", in much the same way that plants and animals can be grouped into reproductively isolated breeding populations. Bacteria may thus form species, analogous to Mayr's biological species concept, consisting of asexually reproducing populations that exchange genes by homologous recombination. [118] [119]

Extinction

A species is extinct when the last individual of that species dies, but it may be functionally extinct well before that moment. It is estimated that over 99 percent of all species that ever lived on Earth, some five billion species, are now extinct. Some of these were in mass extinctions such as those at the ends of the Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous periods. Mass extinctions had a variety of causes including volcanic activity, climate change, and changes in oceanic and atmospheric chemistry, and they in turn had major effects on Earth's ecology, atmosphere, land surface, and waters. [120] [121] Another form of extinction is through the assimilation of one species by another through hybridization. The resulting single species has been termed as a "compilospecies". [122]

Practical implications

Biologists and conservationists need to categorise and identify organisms in the course of their work. Difficulty assigning organisms reliably to a species constitutes a threat to the validity of research results, for example making measurements of how abundant a species is in an ecosystem moot. Surveys using a phylogenetic species concept reported 48% more species and accordingly smaller populations and ranges than those using nonphylogenetic concepts; this was termed "taxonomic inflation", [123] which could cause a false appearance of change to the number of endangered species and consequent political and practical difficulties. [124] [125] Some observers claim that there is an inherent conflict between the desire to understand the processes of speciation and the need to identify and to categorise. [125]

Conservation laws in many countries make special provisions to prevent species from going extinct. Hybridization zones between two species, one that is protected and one that is not, have sometimes led to conflicts between lawmakers, land owners and conservationists. One of the classic cases in North America is that of the protected northern spotted owl which hybridizes with the unprotected California spotted owl and the barred owl; this has led to legal debates. [126] It has been argued that the species problem is created by the varied uses of the concept of species, and that the solution is to abandon it and all other taxonomic ranks, and use unranked monophyletic groups instead. It has been argued, too, that since species are not comparable, counting them is not a valid measure of biodiversity; alternative measures of phylogenetic biodiversity have been proposed. [127] [128]

History

Classical forms

In his biology, Aristotle used the term γένος (génos) to mean a kind, such as a bird or fish, and εἶδος (eidos) to mean a specific form within a kind, such as (within the birds) the crane, eagle, crow, or sparrow. These terms were translated into Latin as "genus" and "species", though they do not correspond to the Linnean terms thus named; today the birds are a class, the cranes are a family, and the crows a genus. A kind was distinguished by its attributes; for instance, a bird has feathers, a beak, wings, a hard-shelled egg, and warm blood. A form was distinguished by being shared by all its members, the young inheriting any variations they might have from their parents. Aristotle believed all kinds and forms to be distinct and unchanging. His approach remained influential until the Renaissance. [129]

Fixed species

John Ray believed that species breed true and do not change, even though variations exist. John Ray from NPG.jpg
John Ray believed that species breed true and do not change, even though variations exist.

When observers in the Early Modern period began to develop systems of organization for living things, they placed each kind of animal or plant into a context. Many of these early delineation schemes would now be considered whimsical: schemes included consanguinity based on colour (all plants with yellow flowers) or behaviour (snakes, scorpions and certain biting ants). John Ray, an English naturalist, was the first to attempt a biological definition of species in 1686, as follows:

No surer criterion for determining species has occurred to me than the distinguishing features that perpetuate themselves in propagation from seed. Thus, no matter what variations occur in the individuals or the species, if they spring from the seed of one and the same plant, they are accidental variations and not such as to distinguish a species ... Animals likewise that differ specifically preserve their distinct species permanently; one species never springs from the seed of another nor vice versa. [130]

Carl Linnaeus created the binomial system for naming species. Carl von Linne.jpg
Carl Linnaeus created the binomial system for naming species.

In the 18th century, the Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus classified organisms according to shared physical characteristics, and not simply based upon differences. [131] He established the idea of a taxonomic hierarchy of classification based upon observable characteristics and intended to reflect natural relationships. [132] [133] At the time, however, it was still widely believed that there was no organic connection between species, no matter how similar they appeared. This view was influenced by European scholarly and religious education, which held that the categories of life are dictated by God, forming an Aristotelian hierarchy, the scala naturae or great chain of being. However, whether or not it was supposed to be fixed, the scala (a ladder) inherently implied the possibility of climbing. [134]

Mutability

In viewing evidence of hybridisation, Linnaeus recognised that species were not fixed and could change; he did not consider that new species could emerge and maintained a view of divinely fixed species that may alter through processes of hybridisation or acclimatisation. [135] By the 19th century, naturalists understood that species could change form over time, and that the history of the planet provided enough time for major changes. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his 1809 Zoological Philosophy, described the transmutation of species, proposing that a species could change over time, in a radical departure from Aristotelian thinking. [136]

In 1859, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace provided a compelling account of evolution and the formation of new species. Darwin argued that it was populations that evolved, not individuals, by natural selection from naturally occurring variation among individuals. [137] This required a new definition of species. Darwin concluded that species are what they appear to be: ideas, provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals, writing:

I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake. [138]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 "Species Concepts". Scientific American. 20 April 2012. Archived from the original on 14 March 2017. Retrieved 14 March 2017.
  2. Mallet, James (1995). "A species definition for the modern synthesis". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 10 (7): 294–299. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(95)90031-4.
  3. Masters, J. C.; Spencer, H. G. (1989). "Why We Need a New Genetic Species Concept". Systematic Zoology. 38 (3): 270–279. doi:10.2307/2992287. JSTOR   2992287.
  4. 1 2 Mayden, R. L. (1997). Claridge, M. F.; Dawah, H. A.; Wilson, M. R., eds. A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement of the species problem. The Units of Biodiversity – Species in Practice Special Volume 54. Systematics Association.
  5. Zachos 2016, p. 79.
  6. Gooders, John (1986). Kingfisher Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Ireland. Kingfisher Books. p. 246. ISBN   978-0-86272-139-8.
  7. Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). "A Quahog is a Quahog". In: The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp. 204–213. ISBN   978-0-393-30023-9.
  8. Maynard Smith, John (1989). Evolutionary Genetics. Oxford University Press. pp. 273–274. ISBN   978-0-19-854215-5.
  9. Ruse, Michael (1969). "Definitions of Species in Biology". The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 20 (2): 97–119. doi:10.1093/bjps/20.2.97. JSTOR   686173.
  10. Lewin, Ralph A. (1981). "Three Species Concepts". Taxon. 30 (3): 609–613. doi:10.2307/1219942. JSTOR   1219942.
  11. Claridge et al.:404.
  12. Ghiselin, Michael T. (1974). "A Radical Solution to the Species Problem". Systematic Biology. 23 (4): 536–544. doi:10.1093/sysbio/23.4.536.
  13. Claridge et al.:408–409.
  14. Paterson, H. E. H. (1985). Vrba, E. S., ed. Monograph No. 4: The recognition concept of species. Species and Speciation. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.
  15. 1 2 Mallet, James. Calow, P., ed. Species, Concepts of (PDF). Encyclopaedia of Ecology and Environmental Management. Blackwell. pp. 709–711. ISBN   978-0-632-05546-3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 October 2016.
  16. Kull, Kalevi (2016). "The biosemiotic concept of the species". Biosemiotics. 9: 61–71. doi:10.1007/s12304-016-9259-2. Archived from the original on 7 February 2018.
  17. Stackebrandt, E.; Goebel, B. M. (1994). "Taxonomic note: a place for DNA-DNA reassociation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology". Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 44 (4): 846–849. doi:10.1099/00207713-44-4-846.
  18. Stackebrandt, E.; Ebers, J. (2006). "Taxonomic parameters revisited: tarnished gold standards" (PDF). Microbiology Today. 33 (4): 152–155. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2018.
  19. Newton, Ian (2003). Speciation and Biogeography of Birds. Academic Press. p. 69. ISBN   978-0-08-092499-1. Archived from the original on 7 February 2018.
  20. Andersson, Malte (1999). Hybridization and skua phylogeny. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 266. pp. 1579–1585. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0818. ISBN   9780080924991. PMC   1690163 . Archived from the original on 7 February 2018.
  21. Keswani, J.; Whitman, W. B. (2001). "Relationship of 16S rRNA sequence similarity to DNA hybridization in prokaryotes". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 51 (2): 667–78. doi:10.1099/00207713-51-2-667. PMID   11321113.
  22. "What Is DNA Barcoding?". Barcode of Life. Archived from the original on 1 July 2017. Retrieved 11 October 2017.
  23. Ratnasingham, Sujeevan; Hebert, Paul D. N. (2007). "BOLD: The Barcode of Life Data System (http://www.barcodinglife.org)". Molecular Ecology Notes. 7 (3): 355–364. doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x. PMC   1890991 . PMID   18784790.
  24. Stoeckle, Mark (November–December 2013). "DNA Barcoding Ready for Breakout". GeneWatch. 26 (5).
  25. DeSalle, R.; Egan, M. G.; Siddall, M. (2005). "The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 360 (1462): 1905–1916. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1722. PMC   1609226 . PMID   16214748.
  26. Whitworth, T. L.; Dawson, R. D.; Magalon, H.; Baudry, E. (2007). "DNA barcoding cannot reliably identify species of the blowfly genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae)". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 274 (1619): 1731–9. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0062. PMC   2493573 . PMID   17472911.
  27. Wheeler, Quentin D.; Platnick, Norman I. 2000. The phylogenetic species concept (sensu Wheeler & Platnick). In: Wheeler, Q. D.; Meier, R., editors. Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: a debate. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 55–69.
  28. 1 2 3 Giraud, T.; Refrégier, G.; Le Gac, M.; de Vienne, D. M.; Hood, M. E. (2008). "Speciation in Fungi". Fungal Genetics and Biology. 45 (6): 791–802. doi:10.1016/j.fgb.2008.02.001. PMID   18346919.
  29. Bernardo, J. (2011). "A critical appraisal of the meaning and diagnosability of cryptic evolutionary diversity, and its implications for conservation in the face of climate change". In Hodkinson, T.; Jones, M.; Waldren, S.; Parnell, J. Climate Change, Ecology and Systematics. Systematics Association Special Series. Cambridge University Press. pp. 380–438. ISBN   978-0-521-76609-8..
  30. 1 2 Nixon, K. C.; Wheeler, Q. D. (1990). "An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept". Cladistics. 6 (3): 211–223. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1990.tb00541.x.
  31. 1 2 3 4 Taylor, J. W.; Jacobson, D. J.; Kroken, S.; Kasuga, T.; Geiser, D. M.; Hibbett, D. S.; Fisher, M. C. (2000). "Phylogenetic species recognition and species concepts in fungi". Fungal Genetics and Biology. 31 (1): 21–32. doi:10.1006/fgbi.2000.1228. PMID   11118132.
  32. Taylor, J. W.; Turner, E.; Townsend, J. P.; Dettman, J. R.; Jacobson, D. (2006). "Eukaryotic microbes, species recognition and the geographic limits of species: Examples from the kingdom Fungi". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 361 (1475): 1947–1963. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1923. PMC   1764934 . PMID   17062413.
  33. Zachos 2016, pp. 91–92.
  34. Groves, C.; Grubb, P. 2011. Ungulate taxonomy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  35. 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 (3): 490–493. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syt004. PMID   23362112.
  36. Cotterill, F.; Taylor, P.; Gippoliti, S.; et al. (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. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syu003. PMID   24415680.
  37. Laporte, L. O. F. (1994). "Simpson on species". Journal of the History of Biology. 27 (1): 141–159. doi:10.1007/BF01058629. PMID   11639257.
  38. Wheeler, pp. 70–92, 146–160, 198–208
  39. Ridley, Mark. "The Idea of Species". Evolution (2nd ed.). Blackwell Science. p. 719. ISBN   978-0-86542-495-1.
  40. Baker, Robert J.; Bradley, Robert D. (2006). "Speciation in Mammals and the Genetic Species Concept". Journal of Mammalogy. 87 (4): 643–662. doi:10.1644/06-MAMM-F-038R2.1. PMC   2771874 . PMID   19890476.
  41. Baker, Robert J.; Bradley, Robert D. (2006). "Speciation in Mammals and the Genetic Species Concept". Journal of Mammalogy. 87 (4): 643–662. doi:10.1644/06-MAMM-F-038R2.1. PMC   2771874 . PMID   19890476.
  42. Government of Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. "COSEWIC's Assessment Process and Criteria". Cosepac.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 12 April 2015. Retrieved 7 April 2015.
  43. DeWeerdt, Sarah (29 July 2002). "What Really is an Evolutionarily Significant Unit?". University of Washington. Archived from the original on 5 February 2017. Retrieved 1 December 2016.
  44. "Chronospecies". Oxford Reference. Archived from the original on 1 October 2014. Retrieved 12 January 2018.
  45. Carr, Steven M. (2005). "Evolutionary species and chronospecies". Memorial University Newfoundland and Labrador. Archived from the original on 10 March 2016. Retrieved 12 January 2018.
  46. Dzik, J. (1985). "Typologic versus population concepts of chronospecies: implications for ammonite biostratigraphy" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 30 (1–2): 71–92. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 March 2017.
  47. O'Brien, Michael J.; Lyman, R. Lee (2007). Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Springer. pp. 146–149. ISBN   978-0-306-47468-2. Archived from the original on 7 February 2018.
  48. Van Regenmortel, Marc H. V. (2010). "Logical puzzles and scientific controversies: The nature of species, viruses and living organisms". Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 33 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2009.11.001. PMID   20005655.
  49. van Nimwegen, Erik; Crutchfield, James P.; Huynen, Martijn (August 1999). "Neutral evolution of mutational robustness". PNAS. 96 (17): 9716–9720. arXiv: adap-org/9903006 . Bibcode:1999PNAS...96.9716V. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.17.9716.
  50. Wilke, Claus O.; Wang, Jia Lan; Ofria, Charles; Lenski, Richard E.; Adami, Christoph (2001). "Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation rates leads to survival of the flattest" (PDF). Nature. 412 (6844): 331–333. doi:10.1038/35085569. PMID   11460163.
  51. Elena, S.F.; Agudelo-Romero, P.; Carrasco, P.; Codoñer, F.M.; Martín, S.; Torres-Barceló, C.; Sanjuán, R. (2008). "Experimental evolution of plant RNA viruses". Heredity. 100 (5): 478–483. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6801088. PMID   18253158.
  52. "A Word About Species Names ..." Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce. Archived from the original on 24 March 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  53. Hone, Dave (19 June 2013). "What's in a name? Why scientific names are important". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 15 February 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  54. One example of an abstract of an article naming a new species can be found at Wellner, S.; Lodders, N.; Kämpfer, P. (2012). "Methylobacterium cerastii sp. nov., a novel species isolated from the leaf surface of Cerastium holosteoides". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 62 (Pt 4): 917–924. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.030767-0. PMID   21669927 . Retrieved 18 June 2011.
  55. Hitchcock, A. S. (1921), "The Type Concept in Systematic Botany", American Journal of Botany, 8 (5): 251–255, doi:10.2307/2434993, JSTOR   2434993
  56. Nicholson, Dan H. "Botanical nomenclature, types, & standard reference works". Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Department of Botany. Archived from the original on 16 September 2015. Retrieved 17 November 2015.
  57. "International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Recommendation 25C". Archived from the original on 8 June 2011. Retrieved 18 June 2011.
  58. 1 2 3 Winston, Judith E. (1999). Describing species. Practical taxonomic procedure for biologists. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 141–144.
  59. "Home – Taxonomy – NCBI". Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. 19 October 2012. Archived from the original on 7 February 2018. Retrieved 25 November 2012.
  60. "KEGG Organisms: Complete Genomes". Genome.jp. Archived from the original on 14 October 2012. Retrieved 25 November 2012.
  61. "Taxonomy". Uniprot.org. Archived from the original on 27 November 2012. Retrieved 25 November 2012.
  62. "ITIS: Homo sapiens". Catalogue of Life. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  63. Simpson, George Gaylord (1945). "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 85: 23.
  64. Chase, Bob (2005). "Upstart Antichrist". History Workshop Journal (60): 202–206. doi:10.1093/hwj/dbi042.
  65. Wilson, Philip (2016). "sensu stricto, sensu lato". AZ of tree terms. Archived from the original on 10 January 2018. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
  66. "Glossary: sensu". International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Archived from the original on 2 August 2017. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
  67. Mayr, Ernst (1942). Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.
  68. Wheeler, pp. 17–29
  69. 1 2 3 4 de Queiroz, K. (2005). "Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species". PNAS. 102 (Supplement 1): 6600–6607. Bibcode:2005PNAS..102.6600D. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502030102. PMC   1131873 . PMID   15851674. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  70. Hopf, F. A.; Hopf, F. W. (1985). "The role of the Allee effect on species packing". Theoretical Population Biology. 27: 27–50. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(85)90014-0.
  71. Bernstein, H.; Byerly, H. C.; Hopf, F. A.; Michod, R.E. (1985). "Sex and the emergence of species". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 117 (4): 665–690. doi:10.1016/S0022-5193(85)80246-0. PMID   4094459.
  72. Bernstein, Carol; Bernstein, Harris (1991). Aging, sex, and DNA repair. Boston: Academic Press. ISBN   978-0-12-092860-6.
  73. Michod, Richard E. (1995). Eros and Evolution: A Natural Philosophy of Sex. Addison-Wesley. ISBN   978-0-201-44232-8.
  74. Hanage, William P. (2013), "Fuzzy species revisited", BMC Biology, 11 (41): 41, doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-41, PMC   3626887 , PMID   23587266
  75. Koch, H. (2010). "Combining morphology and DNA barcoding resolves the taxonomy of Western Malagasy Liotrigona Moure, 1961" (PDF). African Invertebrates . 51 (2): 413–421. doi:10.5733/afin.051.0210. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 December 2016. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  76. De Queiroz, K. (2007). "Species concepts and species delimitation". Systematic Biology. 56 (6): 879–886. doi:10.1080/10635150701701083. PMID   18027281. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  77. Fraser, C.; Alm, E. J.; Polz, M. F.; Spratt, B. G.; Hanage, W. P. (2009). "The bacterial species challenge: making sense of genetic and ecological diversity". Science. 323 (5915): 741–746. Bibcode:2009Sci...323..741F. doi:10.1126/science.1159388. PMID   19197054. Closed Access logo alternative.svg
  78. "Darwin 1859 Chapter II, p. 59". Darwin-online.org.uk. Archived from the original on 21 October 2012. Retrieved 25 November 2012.
  79. Gevers, Dirk; Cohan, Frederick M.; Lawrence, Jeffrey G.; Spratt, Brian G.; Coenye, Tom; Feil, Edward J.; Stackebrandt, Erko; De Peer, Yves Van; Vandamme, Peter; Thompson, Fabiano L.; Swings, Jean (2005). "Opinion: Re-evaluating prokaryotic species". Nature Reviews Microbiology. 3 (9): 733–9. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1236. PMID   16138101.
  80. Templeton, A. R. (1989). "The meaning of species and speciation: A genetic perspective". In Otte, D.; Endler, J. A. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. pp. 3–27.
  81. Edward G. Reekie; Fakhri A. Bazzaz (2005). Reproductive allocation in plants. Academic Press. p. 99. ISBN   978-0-12-088386-8. Archived from the original on 17 June 2013.
  82. Rosselló-Mora, Ramon; Amann, Rudolf (January 2001). "The species concept for prokaryotes". FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 25 (1): 39–67. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2001.tb00571.x. PMID   11152940.
  83. Andino, Raul; Domingo, Esteban (2015). "Viral quasispecies". Virology. 479–480: 46–51. doi:10.1016/j.virol.2015.03.022. PMC   4826558 . PMID   25824477.
  84. Biebricher, C. K.; Eigen, M. (2006). Quasispecies: Concept and Implications for Virology. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. Springer. pp. 1–31. doi:10.1007/3-540-26397-7_1. ISBN   978-3-540-26397-5.
  85. Teueman, A. E. (2009). "The Species-Concept in Palaeontology". Geological Magazine. 61 (8): 355–360. Bibcode:1924GeoM...61..355T. doi:10.1017/S001675680008660X. Archived from the original on 14 March 2017.
  86. Zachos 2016, p. 101.
  87. Zachos 2016, pp. 156–157.
  88. Lahr, D.J.; Laughinghouse, H.D.; Oliverio, A. M.; Gao, F.; Katz, L. A. (2014). "How discordant morphological and molecular evolution among microorganisms can revise our notions of biodiversity on Earth". BioEssays. 36 (10): 950–959. doi:10.1002/bies.201400056. PMC   4288574 . PMID   25156897.
  89. 1 2 3 Melcher, Ulrich (2001). "Molecular genetics: Horizontal gene transfer". Oklahoma State University. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016.
  90. Bapteste, E.; et al. (May 2005). "Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 5 (33): 33. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-5-33. PMC   1156881 . PMID   15913459.
  91. Williamson, David I. (2003). The Origins of Larvae. Kluwer. ISBN   978-1-4020-1514-4.
  92. Heywood, V. H. (1962). "The 'species aggregate' in theory and practice". In Heywood, V. H.; Löve, Á. Symposium on Biosystematics, Montreal, October 1962. pp. 26–36.
  93. Pimentel, David (2014). Biological Invasions: Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant, Animal, and Microbe Species. CRC Press. p. 92. ISBN   978-1-4200-4166-8. Archived from the original on 7 February 2018.
  94. Jarvis, C. E. (1992). "Seventy-Two Proposals for the Conservation of Types of Selected Linnaean Generic Names, the Report of Subcommittee 3C on the Lectotypification of Linnaean Generic Names". Taxon. 41 (3): 552–583. doi:10.2307/1222833. JSTOR   1222833.
  95. Wittzell, Hakan (1999). "Chloroplast DNA variation and reticulate evolution in sexual and apomictic sections of dandelions". Molecular Ecology. 8 (12): 2023–2035. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00807.x. PMID   10632854.
  96. Dijk, Peter J. van (2003). "Ecological and evolutionary opportunities of apomixis: insights from Taraxacum and Chondrilla". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B . 358 (1434): 1113–1121. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1302. PMC   1693208 . PMID   12831477.
  97. Mallet, James; Beltrán, M.; Neukirchen, W.; Linares, M. (2007). "Natural hybridization in heliconiine butterflies: the species boundary as a continuum". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 7 (1): 28. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-28. PMC   1821009 . PMID   17319954. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  98. Ron, Santiago; Caminer, Marcel (2014). "Systematics of treefrogs of the Hypsiboas calcaratus and Hypsiboas fasciatus species complex (Anura, Hylidae) with the description of four new species". ZooKeys (370): 1–68. doi:10.3897/zookeys.370.6291. PMC   3904076 . PMID   24478591.
  99. Geml, J.; Tulloss, R. E.; Laursen, G. A.; Sasanova, N. A.; Taylor, D. L. (2008). "Evidence for strong inter- and intracontinental phylogeographic structure in Amanita muscaria, a wind-dispersed ectomycorrhizal basidiomycete". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 48 (2): 694–701. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2008.04.029. PMID   18547823.
  100. "Defining a species". University of California Berkeley. Archived from the original on 13 March 2017. Retrieved 12 March 2017.
  101. Zachos 2016, p. 188.
  102. Stamos, David N. (2003). The Species Problem: Biological Species, Ontology, and the Metaphysics of Biology. Lexington Books. p. 330. ISBN   978-0-7391-6118-0. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017.
  103. Moritz, C.; Schneider, C. J.; Wake, D. B. (1992). "Evolutionary Relationships Within the Ensatina Eschscholtzii Complex Confirm the Ring Species Interpretation" (PDF). Systematic Biology. 41 (3): 273. doi:10.1093/sysbio/41.3.273. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 January 2018.
  104. Irwin, D. E.; Bensch, Staffan; Irwin, Jessica H.; Price, Trevor D. (2005). "Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species". Science. 307 (5708): 414–6. Bibcode:2005Sci...307..414I. doi:10.1126/science.1105201. PMID   15662011.
  105. Martens, Jochen; Päckert, Martin (2007). "Ring species – Do they exist in birds?". Zoologischer Anzeiger. 246 (4): 315. doi:10.1016/j.jcz.2007.07.004.
  106. Alcaide, M.; Scordato, E. S. C.; Price, T. D.; Irwin, D. E. (2014). "Genomic divergence in a ring species complex". Nature. 511 (7507): 83–85. Bibcode:2014Natur.511...83A. doi:10.1038/nature13285. hdl:10261/101651. PMID   24870239.
  107. Liebers, Dorit; Knijff, Peter de; Helbig, Andreas J. (2004). "The herring gull complex is not a ring species". Proc Biol Sci. 271 (1542): 893–901. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2679. PMC   1691675 . PMID   15255043.
  108. Highton, R. (1998). "Is Ensatina eschscholtzii a ring species?". Herpetologica. 54 (2): 254–278. JSTOR   3893431.
  109. 1 2 Barton, N. H. (June 2010). "What role does natural selection play in speciation?". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 365 (1547): 1825–1840. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0001. PMC   2871892 . PMID   20439284.
  110. 1 2 Vaux, Felix; Trewick, Steven A.; Morgan-Richards, Mary (2017). "Speciation through the looking-glass". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 120 (2): 480–488. doi:10.1111/bij.12872.
  111. Zachos 2016, pp. 77–96.
  112. Cook, Orator F. (30 March 1906). "Factors of species-formation". Science . 23 (587): 506–507. Bibcode:1906Sci....23..506C. doi:10.1126/science.23.587.506. PMID   17789700.
  113. Cook, Orator F. (November 1908). "Evolution Without Isolation". The American Naturalist . 42 (503): 727–731. doi:10.1086/279001.
  114. Via, Sara (16 June 2009). "Natural selection in action during speciation". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (Suppl 1): 9939–9946. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.9939V. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901397106. PMC   2702801 . PMID   19528641.
  115. Mayr, Ernst (1982). "Speciation and Macroevolution". Evolution. 36 (6): 1119–1132. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1982.tb05483.x. PMID   28563569.
  116. Pennisi, Elizabeth (2004). "Researchers Trade Insights about Gene Swapping" (PDF). Science. 334–335: 335. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 February 2006.
  117. Zhaxybayeva, Olga; Peter Gogarten, J. (2004). "Cladogenesis, coalescence and the evolution of the three domains of life" (PDF). Trends in Genetics. 20 (4): 182–7. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2004.02.004. PMID   15041172. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 March 2009.
  118. Venton, Danielle (2017). "Highlight: Applying the Biological Species Concept across All of Life". Genome Biology and Evolution. 9 (3): 502–503. doi:10.1093/gbe/evx045. PMC   5381533 . PMID   28391326.
  119. Bobay, Louis-Marie; Ochman, Howard (2017). "Biological Species Are Universal across Life's Domains". Genome Biology and Evolution. 9 (3): 491–501. doi:10.1093/gbe/evx026. PMC   5381558 . PMID   28186559.
  120. Kunin, W. E.; Gaston, Kevin, eds. (1996). The Biology of Rarity: Causes and consequences of rare–common differences. ISBN   978-0-412-63380-5. Archived from the original on 5 September 2015.
  121. Stearns, Beverly Peterson; Stearns, Stephen C. (2000). Watching, from the Edge of Extinction. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. p. preface x. ISBN   978-0-300-08469-6.
  122. Zachos 2016, p. 82.
  123. Zachos, Frank E. (2015). "Taxonomic inflation, the Phylogenetic Species Concept and lineages in the Tree of Life – a cautionary comment on species splitting". Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research. 53 (2): 180–184. doi:10.1111/jzs.12088.
  124. Agapow, Paul‐Michael; Bininda‐Emonds, Olaf R. P.; Crandall, Keith A.; Gittleman, John L.; Mace, Georgina M.; Marshall, Jonathon C.; Purvis, Andy (2004). "The Impact of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies" (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 79 (2): 161–179. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.535.2974 . doi:10.1086/383542. JSTOR   10.1086/383542. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 January 2018.
  125. 1 2 Hey, Jody (July 2001). "The mind of the species problem". Trends in Ecology and Evolution . 16 (7): 326–329. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02145-0. PMID   11403864.
  126. Haig, Susan M.; Allendorf, F.W. (2006). "Hybrids and Policy". In Scott, J. Michael; Goble, D. D.; Davis, Frank W. The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, Volume 2: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Washington: Island Press. pp. 150–163. Archived from the original on 7 February 2018.
  127. Mishler, Brent D. (1999). Wilson, R., ed. Getting Rid of Species? (PDF). Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. MIT Press. pp. 307–315. ISBN   978-0262731232. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 January 2018.
  128. Vane-Wright, R. I.; Humphries, C. J.; Williams, P. H. (1991). "What to protect? – systematics and the agony of choice". Biological Conservation. 55 (3): 235–254. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(91)90030-D.
  129. Leroi, Armand Marie (2014). The Lagoon: How Aristotle Invented Science. Bloomsbury. pp. 88–90. ISBN   978-1-4088-3622-4.
  130. Ray, John (1686). Historia plantarum generalis, Tome I, Libr. I. p. Chap. XX, page 40., quoted in Mayr, Ernst (1982). The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Belknap Press. p. 256.
  131. Davis, P. H.; Heywood, V. H. (1973). Principles of Angiosperm Taxonomy. Huntington, New York: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. p. 17.
  132. Reveal, James L.; Pringle, James S. (1993). "7. Taxonomic Botany and Floristics". Flora of North America. Oxford University Press. pp. 160–161. ISBN   978-0-19-505713-3.
  133. Simpson, George Gaylord (1961). Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press. pp. 56–57.
  134. Mahoney, Edward P. (1987). "Lovejoy and the Hierarchy of Being". Journal of the History of Ideas. 48 (2): 211–230. doi:10.2307/2709555. JSTOR   2709555.
  135. "Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778)". UCMP Berkeley. Archived from the original on 30 April 2011. Retrieved 24 January 2018.
  136. Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard: Belknap Harvard. pp. 170–197. ISBN   978-0-674-00613-3.
  137. Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. pp. 177–223 and passim. ISBN   978-0-520-23693-6.
  138. Menand, Louis (2001). The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 123–124. ISBN   978-0-374-70638-8.

Cited sources

Related Research Articles

Heredity passing of traits to offspring from its parents or ancestor

Heredity is the passing on of traits from parents to their offspring, either through asexual reproduction or sexual reproduction, the offspring cells or organisms acquire the genetic information of their parents. Through heredity, variations between individuals can accumulate and cause species to evolve by natural selection. The study of heredity in biology is genetics.

Microevolution The change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population

Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection, gene flow and genetic drift. This change happens over a relatively short amount of time compared to the changes termed macroevolution which is where greater differences in the population occur.

Macroevolution Evolution on a scale at or above the level of species

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population. Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

Speciation The evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species. The biologist Orator F. Cook coined the term in 1906 for cladogenesis, the splitting of lineages, as opposed to anagenesis, phyletic evolution within lineages. Charles Darwin was the first to describe the role of natural selection in speciation in his 1859 book The Origin of Species. He also identified sexual selection as a likely mechanism, but found it problematic.

Modern synthesis (20th century) Combination of Darwins theory of evolution with natural selection and Mendels findings on heredity

The modern synthesis was the early 20th-century synthesis reconciling Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and Gregor Mendel's ideas on heredity in a joint mathematical framework. Julian Huxley coined the term in his 1942 book, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.

Molecular evolution The process of change in the sequence composition of cellular molecules across generations

Molecular evolution is the process of change in the sequence composition of cellular molecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins across generations. The field of molecular evolution uses principles of evolutionary biology and population genetics to explain patterns in these changes. Major topics in molecular evolution concern the rates and impacts of single nucleotide changes, neutral evolution vs. natural selection, origins of new genes, the genetic nature of complex traits, the genetic basis of speciation, evolution of development, and ways that evolutionary forces influence genomic and phenotypic changes.

Evolutionary biology Study of the processes that produced the diversity of life

Evolutionary biology is the subfield of biology that studies the evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth, starting from a single common ancestor. These processes include natural selection, common descent, and speciation.

Index of evolutionary biology articles Wikimedia list article

This is a list of topics in evolutionary biology.

Peripatric speciation Speciation in which a new species is formed from an isolated smaller peripheral population

Peripatric speciation is a mode of speciation in which a new species is formed from an isolated peripheral population. Since peripatric speciation resembles allopatric speciation, in that populations are isolated and prevented from exchanging genes, it can often be difficult to distinguish between them. Nevertheless, the primary characteristic of peripatric speciation proposes that one of the populations is much smaller than the other. The terms peripatric and peripatry are often used in biogeography, referring to organisms whose ranges are closely adjacent but do not overlap, being separated where these organisms do not occur—for example on an oceanic island compared to the mainland. Such organisms are usually closely related ; their distribution being the result of peripatric speciation.

Evidence of common descent Evidence that a given group of organisms have a common ancestor, and therefore that evolution has taken place.

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity. It supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent, all the way back to the last universal common ancestor, by developing testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and constructing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

Species complex informal grouping of taxa

In biology, a species complex is a group of closely related organisms that are very similar in appearance to the point that the boundaries between them are often unclear. Terms sometimes used synonymously but with more precise meanings are: cryptic species for two or more species hidden under one species name, sibling species for two cryptic species that are each other's closest relative, and species flock for a group of closely related species living in the same habitat. As informal taxonomic ranks, species group, species aggregate, and superspecies are also in use.

The species problem is the set of questions that arises when biologists attempt to define what a species is. Such a definition is called a species concept; there are at least 26 recognized species concepts. A species concept that works well for sexually reproducing organisms such as birds is useless for species that reproduce asexually, such as bacteria. The scientific study of the species problem has been called microtaxonomy.

Introduction to evolution A non-technical explanation of the basic concepts and principles of biological evolution

Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. Biological populations evolve through genetic changes that correspond to changes in the organisms' observable traits. Genetic changes include mutations, which are caused by damage or replication errors in organisms' DNA. As the genetic variation of a population drifts randomly over generations, natural selection gradually leads traits to become more or less common based on the relative reproductive success of organisms with those traits.

DNA barcoding is a taxonomic method that uses a designated portion of a specific gene or genes to identify an organism to species. These "barcodes" are sometimes used in an effort to identify unknown species, parts of an organism, or simply to catalog as many extant taxa as possible.

Outline of evolution Hierarchical outline list of articles related to evolution

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to evolution:

Reticulate evolution

Reticulate evolution, or network evolution, describes the origination of a lineage through the partial merging of two ancestor lineages, leading to relationships better described by a phylogenetic network than a bifurcating tree. Reticulate patterns can be found in the phylogenetic reconstructions of biodiversity lineages obtained by comparing the characteristics of organisms. Reticulation processes can potentially be convergent and divergent at the same time. Reticulate evolution indicates the lack of independence between two evolutionary lineages. Reticulation affects survival, fitness and speciation rates of species. The adjective reticulate stems from the Latin words reticulatus “having a net-like pattern” and reticulum “little net”, according to the Etymology Dictionary.

History of speciation

The scientific study of speciation — how species evolve to become new species — began around the time of Charles Darwin in the middle of the 19th century. Many naturalists at the time recognized the relationship between biogeography and the evolution of species. The 20th century saw the growth of the field of speciation, with major contributors such as Ernst Mayr researching and documenting species' geographic patterns and relationships. The field grew in prominence with the modern evolutionary synthesis in the early part of that century. Since then, research on speciation has expanded immensely.