Species Concepts, Species Boundaries and Species Identification: A View from the Tropics

Balakrishnan, Rohini

doi:10.1080/10635150590950308

Cited by 82 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Rubinoff and Holland (2005), DNA barcoding can be regarded as a 'tremendous tool' to accelerate species discovery and initiate new species descriptions (DeSalle et al, 2005;DeSalle, 2006). Moreover, it re-opens the debate on species concepts (Fitzhugh, 2006;Rubinoff et al, 2006b;Balakrishnan, 2007;Miller, 2007;Vogler and Monaghan, 2007). Unlike other well-known sequence libraries (e.g.…”

Section: -3 Dna Barcoding As a Driving Force In Biological Sciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four years of DNA barcoding: Current advances and prospects

Frézal

Leblois

2008

Infection, Genetics and Evolution

300

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: -3 Dna Barcoding As a Driving Force In Biological Sciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four years of DNA barcoding: Current advances and prospects

Frézal

Leblois

2008

Infection, Genetics and Evolution

300

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…nov. started from the idea that a species should be identified clearly on morphological traits that one can find on any adult individual of a given sex. Within a polymorphic phylogenetic lineage like the Cryptocandona vavrai (sensu lato) species should be defined by gaps within the morphologic variation of a trait (Wiley 1981, Balakrishnan 2005, K. Martens oral communication to D.L.D.). Although the clear separation of the investigated populations was statistically illustrated, we avoided the definition of taxa based solely on morphological traits identified with statistical methods, like the 75% subspecies criterion favoured by Simpson (1961), or on the multidimensional system of Sbordoni (1993) in which a species is defined as a group of individuals discretely separated from others in the morphological space.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological diversity and microevolutionary aspects of the lineage Cryptocandona vavrai Kaufmann, 1900 (Ostracoda, Candoninae)

Iepure

Namiotko

Danielopol

2008

Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphology of both the valves and limbs of several parthenogenetic populations of the widespread non-marine ostracod Cryptocandona vavrai Kaufmann (sensu lato) living in groundwater habitats of western (France) and south-eastern Europe (Romania) was examined for the extent of intra-and interpopulational variation. Geometric morphometrics and multivariate statistics were employed for the description of the valve morphological disparity whereas the discriminant analysis was performed for the comparative analysis of the limb chaetotaxy. The ranges of the most studied limb traits principally overlapped among the populations, however considerable differences in the carapace shape and size, reflecting microevolutionary changes at a macro-scale (inter-population) level, allowed distinguishing quantitatively some Romanian populations which deserve a separate specific status. Hence, a new species Cryptocandona racovitzai sp. nov. is described which differs from C. vavrai sensu stricto mainly in larger size, in more triangular valve shape as seen laterally and in less developed inner lamella of the valves. Finally, after examination of more material from Romanian groundwaters, we hypothesised the presence of more new species within the studied lineage and concluded that Cryptocandona vavrai sensu lato is a polymorphic lineage consisting of several geographically differentiated species rather than just only one widely dispersed species.

show abstract

“…All these factors collectively make species identification an extremely specialized and time-consuming science, and even expert taxonomists can have difficulty reaching consensus. Moreover, this reliance on diagnostic characters that are present only in the adult life stage creates a serious constraint on identification, as many specimens lack these characters (Balakrishnan 2005). The life-history stages most commonly intercepted at ports of entry are larvae and pupae (Scheffer et al 2006), and damage to specimens collected in the field often makes identification difficult or impossible.…”

Section: Species Concepts and Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%