Taxonomy as tyranny

Collar, Nigel

doi:10.1111/ibi.12569

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on our analyses of the mtDNA sequences and our assessment of prior descriptions of the external morphology of the birds, we treat allopatric or parapatric forms that are diag- nosable as phylogenetic species (Barrowclough et al, 2016). These are the proper units for studies of evolutionary divergence and historical biogeography; they document diversity hidden in current avian species lists (Collar, 2018). In addition, they play a critical role in setting priorities for conservation planning (Peterson and Navarro-Sigiienza, 1999;Goldstein et al, 2000).…”

Section: Discussion Phylogeography and Species Limits In The Musophagmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogeography, Species Limits, Phylogeny, and Classification of the Turacos (Aves: Musophagidae) Based on Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA Sequences

Perktaş

Groth

Barrowclough

2020

American Museum Novitates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences to examine patterns of differentiation and evolution in the Musophagidae, an avian family endemic to sub-Saharan Africa; attention was focused on the subfamily Musophaginae, the turacos, or louries. Phylogeographic analysis of 410 individual ND2 sequences from throughout the ranges of the currently recognized species revealed multiple instances of unexpectedly large genetic divergences and cryptic taxa. Within both montane and lowland species, including Tauraco hartlaubi and T: schalowi, Menelikornis leucotis, Musophaga macrorhyncha, and Gallirex johnstoni, fixed private haplotypes were found in disjunct portions of the ranges, suggesting negligible recent gene flow and evolutionary independence of populations. Two taxa originally described as subspecies (T: schalowi loitanus and T. s. marungensis), but not recognized for over 50 years, were found to be 100% diagnosable based on the mitochondrial sequences. The data also revealed the existence of two polyphyletic traditional species, Tauraco livingstonii and T. schuettii, as well as the polyphyly or paraphyly of all traditional superspecies complexes involving members of the genus Tauraco. Overall, our analyses of genetic and morphological variation revealed substantial and unexpected geographic diversity within the Musophagidae. We recognize 33 species-level taxa that represent the appropriate units for phylogenetic and biogeographic analyses (phylogenetic species). We used complete mitochondrial ND2 sequences and nuclear DNA sequences of an Aconitase intron and of the RAG-1 exon to infer the phylogenetic relationships among those species. The results include all the phylogenetic species and, for the first time, nuclear data. We present ' Division of Vertebrate Zoology (Ornithology), American Museum of Natural History.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Phylogeography and Species Limits In The Musophagmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogeography, Species Limits, Phylogeny, and Classification of the Turacos (Aves: Musophagidae) Based on Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA Sequences

Perktaş

Groth

Barrowclough

2020

American Museum Novitates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Criteria used to designate organisms as species are thus varied and inconsistently applied such that, given the same information, separate groups of experts might classify taxa differently [3,15,17]. As a result, the four commonly recognized world bird lists contain differing numbers of species-level taxa [18,19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards reconciliation of the four world bird lists: hotspots of disagreement in taxonomy of raptors

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are currently four world bird lists referenced by different stakeholders including governments, academic journals, museums and citizen scientists. Consolidation of these lists is a conservation and research priority. In reconciling lists, care must be taken to ensure agreement in taxonomic concepts—the actual groups of individual organisms circumscribed by a given scientific epithet. Here, we compare species-level taxonomic concepts for raptors across the four lists, highlighting areas of disagreement. Of the 665 species-level raptor taxa observed at least once among the four lists, only 453 (68%) were consistent across all four lists. The Howard and Moore Checklist of the Birds of the World contains the fewest raptor species (528), whereas the International Ornithological Community World Bird List contains the most (580) and these two lists are in the most disagreement. Of the disagreements, 67% involved owls, and Indonesia was the country containing the most disagreed upon species (169). Finally, we calculated the amount of species-level agreement across lists for each avian order and found raptor orders spread throughout the rankings of agreement. Our results emphasize the need to reconcile the four world bird lists for all avian orders, highlight broad disagreements across lists and identify hotspots of disagreement for raptors, in particular.

show abstract

“… Garnett and Christidis (2017) criticized the “anarchy” in current taxonomy, citing the large number of splits by Del Hoyo and Collar (2014 , 2016 ) and calling for the regulation by committee of splitting and lumping in taxonomy and moves to “restrict the freedom of taxonomic action”. This proposal has itself been widely criticized (e.g., Thomson et al 2018 , Collar 2018 ), some authors commenting that it “conflict[s] with some basic and indisputable principles underpinning the philosophy of science” ( Raposo et al 2017 ). There appears to be broad disagreement as to whether existing taxonomies are either (i) well-developed, only to be changed following review of the scientific literature by appropriately appointed persons; or (ii) irrational and in need of expeditious root-branch review.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a species? A new universal method to measure differentiation and assess the taxonomic rank of allopatric populations, using continuous variables

Donegan¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing models for assigning species, subspecies, or no taxonomic rank to populations which are geographically separated from one another were analyzed. This was done by subjecting over 3,000 pairwise comparisons of vocal or biometric data based on birds to a variety of statistical tests that have been proposed as measures of differentiation. One current model which aims to test diagnosability (Isler et al. 1998) is highly conservative, applying a hard cut-off, which excludes from consideration differentiation below diagnosis. It also includes non-overlap as a requirement, a measure which penalizes increases to sample size. The “species scoring” model of Tobias et al. (2010) involves less drastic cut-offs, but unlike Isler et al. (1998), does not control adequately for sample size and attributes scores in many cases to differentiation which is not statistically significant. Four different models of assessing effect sizes were analyzed: using both pooled and unpooled standard deviations and controlling for sample size using t-distributions or omitting to do so. Pooled standard deviations produced more conservative effect sizes when uncontrolled for sample size but less conservative effect sizes when so controlled. Pooled models require assumptions to be made that are typically elusive or unsupported for taxonomic studies. Modifications to improving these frameworks are proposed, including: (i) introducing statistical significance as a gateway to attributing any weighting to findings of differentiation; (ii) abandoning non-overlap as a test; (iii) recalibrating Tobias et al. (2010) scores based on effect sizes controlled for sample size using t-distributions. A new universal method is proposed for measuring differentiation in taxonomy using continuous variables and a formula is proposed for ranking allopatric populations. This is based first on calculating effect sizes using unpooled standard deviations, controlled for sample size using t-distributions, for a series of different variables. All non-significant results are excluded by scoring them as zero. Distance between any two populations is calculated using Euclidian summation of non-zeroed effect size scores. If the score of an allopatric pair exceeds that of a related sympatric pair, then the allopatric population can be ranked as species and, if not, then at most subspecies rank should be assigned. A spreadsheet has been programmed and is being made available which allows this and other tests of differentiation and rank studied in this paper to be rapidly analyzed.

show abstract

Taxonomy as tyranny

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

Phylogeography, Species Limits, Phylogeny, and Classification of the Turacos (Aves: Musophagidae) Based on Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA Sequences

Phylogeography, Species Limits, Phylogeny, and Classification of the Turacos (Aves: Musophagidae) Based on Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA Sequences

Towards reconciliation of the four world bird lists: hotspots of disagreement in taxonomy of raptors

What is a species? A new universal method to measure differentiation and assess the taxonomic rank of allopatric populations, using continuous variables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About