物种概念及其界定

半世纪以来,物种概念的定义备受关注,不同研究方向的生物学家提出24种不同或至少有分歧的物种概念,根据其不同的物种概念,物种的界定和物种的数量会出现很大的差异。人们普遍认同:物种是进化分离的微居群谱系,但把谱系分离过程中获得的特征如生殖隔离、可鉴定性、单系统发生等视为鉴定物种次级特征却有不同的声音。该文提出统一的物种概念,把谱系进化分离作为物种界定的唯一而又必要的特征,把谱系分离过程中获得的次级特征作为界定谱系分离的证据。鉴于此,物种概念间的分歧就会化解。其一,物种概念化与物种界定明显分开,不再混淆;其二,谱系的次级特征只与物种界定有关,在某种程度上为谱系分离提供证据;第三,若能把合理解释的任何一个特征作为某物种客观存在的证据,这样更多的特征更能确定谱系分离;最后最重要的是,统一物种概念使我们解放思想,扬弃传统的物种界定标准,探求物种界定的新思路。     

Unpacking the species conundrum: philosophy,practice and a way forward

The history of ecology and evolutionary biology is rife with attempts to define and delimit species. However, there has been confusion between concepts and criteria, which has led to discussion, debate, and conflict, eventually leading to lack of consistency in delimitation. Here, we provide a broad review of species concepts, a clarification of category versus concept, an account of the general lineage concept (GLC), and finally a way forward for species discovery and delimitation. Historically, species were considered as varieties bound together by reproduction. After over 200 years of uncertainty, Mayr attempted to bring coherence to the definition of species through the biological species concept (BSC). This has, however, received much criticism, and the last half century has spawned at least 20 other concepts. A central philosophical problem is that concepts treat species as ‘individuals’ while the criteria for categorization treats them as ‘classes’. While not getting away from this problem entirely, the GLC attempts to provide a framework where lineage divergence is influenced by a number of different factors (and correlated to different traits) which relate to the different species concepts. We also introduce an ‘inclusive’ probabilistic approach for understanding and delimiting species. Finally, we provide a Wallacean (geography related) approach to the Linnaean problem of identifying and delimiting species, particularly for cases of allopatric divergence, and map this to the GLC. Going one step further, we take a morphometric terrain approach to visualizing and understanding differences between lineages. In summary, we argue that while generalized frameworks may work well for concepts of what species are, plurality and ‘inclusive’ probabilistic approaches may work best for delimitation.     

Species concepts and species delimitation

The issue of species delimitation has long been confused with that of species conceptualization, leading to a half century of controversy concerning both the definition of the species category and methods for inferring the boundaries and numbers of species. Alternative species concepts agree in treating existence as a separately evolving metapopulation lineage as the primary defining property of the species category, but they disagree in adopting different properties acquired by lineages during the course of divergence (e.g., intrinsic reproductive isolation, diagnosability, monophyly) as secondary defining properties (secondary species criteria). A unified species concept can be achieved by treating existence as a separately evolving metapopulation lineage as the only necessary property of species and the former secondary species criteria as different lines of evidence (operational criteria) relevant to assessing lineage separation. This unified concept of species has several consequences for species delimitation, including the following: First, the issues of species conceptualization and species delimitation are clearly separated; the former secondary species criteria are no longer considered relevant to species conceptualization but only to species delimitation. Second, all of the properties formerly treated as secondary species criteria are relevant to species delimitation to the extent that they provide evidence of lineage separation. Third, the presence of any one of the properties (if appropriately interpreted) is evidence for the existence of a species, though more properties and thus more lines of evidence are associated with a higher degree of corroboration. Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, a unified species concept shifts emphasis away from the traditional species criteria, encouraging biologists to develop new methods of species delimitation that are not tied to those properties.     

Branches in the lines of descent: Charles Darwin and the evolution of the species concept

Charles Darwin introduced a novel idea into the concept of species, namely that species are branches in the lines of descent (segments of population lineages). In addition to this novel evolutionary component, Darwin's species concept also retained an older taxonomic component, namely the view that the species category is a taxonomic rank; moreover, he adopted amount of difference as a criterion for ranking lineages as species. Subsequent biologists retained both components of Darwin's species concept, although they replaced Darwin's ranking criterion with ranking criteria that either are more objectively defined or relate more directly to the biological bases of lineage separation and divergence. Numerous alternative ranking criteria were proposed, resulting in a proliferation of species definitions and a controversy concerning the concept of species. That controversy can be resolved by distinguishing more explicitly between the theoretical concept of species and the operational criteria that are used to apply the concept in practice. By viewing the various alternative ranking criteria as operational indicators of lineage separation rather than necessary properties of species, the conflicts among competing species concepts are eliminated, resulting in a unified concept of species. A brief examination of the history of biology reveals that an important shift related to the unified species concept has been emerging ever since Darwin reformulated the concept of species with an evolutionary basis. The species category is effectively being decoupled from the hierarchy of taxonomic ranks and transferred to the hierarchy of biological organization. Published 2011. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 103 , 19–35.     

Species concepts and the recognition of ancestors

Whether or not ancestral species can be recognised depends on the species concept adopted. A “metaspecies”; is a species that completely lacks autapomorphies, and which might (or might not) be ancestral to other species. Such taxa have been identified among both living and fossil organisms. Under the most commonly‐used species concepts (biological, evolutionary, phenetic, phylogenetic, ecological, recognition and cohesion), “metaspecies”; can be assumed to be ancestral. Even if the known members of a metaspecies are not ancestral to anything, parsimony dictates that the (as yet unknown) ancestral lineage is identical to the metaspecies and, under these species concepts, assignable to the same species. Only the cladistic and monophyletic species concepts would deny “metaspecies”; ancestral status, but these species concepts are problematical and have never been used by practising systematists.     

Species concepts and species reality: salvaging a Linnaean rank

The validity of the species category (rank) as a distinct level of biological organization has been questioned. Phenetic, cohesion and monophyletic species concepts do not delimit species-level taxa that are qualitatively distinct from lower or higher taxa: all organisms throughout the tree of life exhibit varying degrees of similarity, cohesion, and monophyly. In contrast, interbreeding concepts delimit species-level taxa characterized by a phenomenon (regular gene flow) not found in higher taxa, making the species category a distinct level of biological organization. Only interbreeding concepts delimit species-level taxa that are all comparable according to a biologically meaningful criterion and qualitatively distinct from entities assigned to other taxonomic categories. Consistent application of interbreeding concepts can result in counterintuitive taxonomies--e.g. many wide polytypic species in plants and narrow cryptic species in animals. However, far from being problematic, such differences are biologically illuminating--reflecting differing barriers to gene flow in different clades. Empirical problems with interbreeding concepts exist, but many of these also apply to other species concepts, whereas others are not as severe as some have argued. A monistic view of species using interbreeding concepts will encounter strong historical inertia, but can save the species category from redundancy with other categories, and thus justify continued recognition of the species category.     

“整合物种概念”和“分化路上的物种”

已有的各个物种概念对物种的认识类似盲人摸象, 只包含了物种的某一个方面; 而一个分化后期的成熟物种应涵盖了所有的物种概念。但是, 尚未到达分化后期的物种往往又已开始新一轮的物种分化; 自然中存在的多数“物种”处于分化路上。这种循环往复连续分化产生的物种, 存在种间生殖隔离不彻底、基因流频繁发生、网状进化突出等现象。此外, 对于不同的物种对, 最早开始分化的基因以及不同物种概念所要求的条件的分化顺序不是统一的, 而是随机的。定义一个适合所有“分化路上的物种”概念存在较大困难。但是, 应采用尽可能多的物种概念来界定分化路上的物种、发表新种和进行分类处理; 也应承认种间可能广泛存在不完全的生殖隔离和有限的基因流, 即有不属于两个物种群体的杂交或回交个体的存在。这样划分的物种比只依据一个物种概念认定的物种具有更高的客观性和科学性。     

Bacterial species and evolution: Theoretical and practical perspectives

A discussion of the species problem in modern evolutionary biology serves as the point of departure for an exploration of how the basic science aspects of this problem relate to efforts to map bacterial diversity for practical pursuits—for prospecting among the bacteria for useful genes and gene-products. Out of a confusing array of species concepts, the Cohesion Species Concept seems the most appropriate and useful for analyzing bacterial diversity. Techniques of allozyme analysis and DNA fingerprinting can be used to put this concept into practice to map bacterial genetic diversity, though the concept requires minor modification to encompass cases of complete asexuality. Examples from studies of phenetically definedBacillus species provide very partial maps of genetic population structure. A major conclusion is that such maps frequently reveal deep genetic subdivision within the phenetically defined specles; divisions that in some cases are clearly distinct genetic species. Knowledge of such subdivisions is bound to make prospecting within bacterial diversity more effective. Under the general concept of genetic cohesion a hypothetical framework for thinking about the full range of species conditions that might exist among bacteria is developed and the consequences of each such model for species delineation, and species identification are discussed. Modes of bacterial evolution, and a theory of bacterial speciation with and without genetic recombination, are examined. The essay concludes with thoughts about prospects for very extensive mapping of bacterial diversity in the service of future efforts to find useful products. In this context, evolutionary biology becomes the handmaiden of important industrial activities. A few examples of past success in commercializing bacterial gene-products from species ofBacillus and a few other bacteria are reviewed.     

Mammals and meaningful taxonomic units: the debate about species concepts and conservation

Mammalian taxonomy based on the diagnosability version of the Phylogenetic Species Concept has recently been declared the only sound approach to mammalian classification. In this article, based on the underlying evolutionary ontology of species taxa, I explain the fallacy of these arguments and hold that in a ‘grey area’ after lineage sundering, completely objective species delimitation is impossible, making both lumping and splitting equally correct or incorrect. As a consequence, we may have to get used to the idea that described species are often a poor guide to the delineation of meaningful taxonomic units for conservation.     

On the failure of modern species concepts

The modern age of species concepts began in 1942, when Ernst Mayr gave concept names to several different approaches to species identification. A long list of species concepts then followed, as well as a complex literature on their merits, motivations and uses. Some of these complexities arose as a consequence of the semantic shift that Mayr introduced, in which procedures for identifying species were elevated to concepts. Much of the debate in recent decades over concepts, and over pluralism versus monism, can be seen as an unnecessary consequence of treating species identification criteria as if they were more fundamental concepts. Recently, biologists have begun to recognize both the shortcomings of a lexicon of multiple species concepts and a common evolutionary idea that underlies them.     

浅析物种概念的演变历史

本文是一篇关于物种概念演变的简述。生物学家用不同的方法或标准划分物种, 就形成了不同的物种概念, 如生物学物种、形态学物种、生态学物种、进化物种、系统发生或支序物种, 或它们的组合, 等等。它们都揭示了物种属性的特定侧面, 都是不同物种客观存在的真实反映, 但都无法令所有人满意。对真核生物来说, 无论它们在形态上的差别有多大, 生殖隔离(不能产生可育的后代)应该是两个群体能否真正分化成不同物种的关键, 这种隔离机制可以是地理的、行为的或其他方式; 而生殖隔离总会伴随着一些形态或遗传上的变化, 虽然这些特征可能与生殖隔离本身并无多大关系, 但往往成为分类学家或分子进化生物学家区分种的依据,对已经灭绝的化石物种来说, 生殖隔离的物种划分方式就无能为力了。如何准确定义一个物种依然充满着矛盾, 因为基于生殖隔离的物种概念不实用, 而实用的物种概念(如形态学物种)又被认为是人为的。     

Adaptive evolutionary conservation: towards a unified concept for defining conservation units

Recent years have seen a debate over various methods that could objectively prioritize conservation value below the species level. Most prominent among these has been the evolutionarily significant unit (ESU). We reviewed ESU concepts with the aim of proposing a more unified concept that would reconcile opposing views. Like species concepts, conflicting ESU concepts are all essentially aiming to define the same thing: segments of species whose divergence can be measured or evaluated by putting differential emphasis on the role of evolutionary forces at varied temporal scales. Thus, differences between ESU concepts lie more in the criteria used to define the ESUs themselves rather than in their fundamental essence. We provide a context-based framework for delineating ESUs which circumvents much of this situation. Rather than embroil in a befuddled debate over an optimal criterion, the key to a solution is accepting that differing criteria will work more dynamically than others and can be used alone or in combination depending on the situation. These assertions constitute the impetus behind adaptive evolutionary conservation.     

A pragmatic approach to the species problem from a paleontological perspective

The ideal scenario for paleontologists would be for the species they designate to be equivalent to the species recognized for modern animals, in the sense that they were formed as a result of the same evolutionary processes. This would mean, for example, that we could be confident that in combining extant and extinct taxa in phylogenetic analyses we would be dealing with equivalent operational taxonomic units. Notwithstanding the many thousands of pages that have been spent arguing over species concepts, the only concept that has won widespread acceptance for the designation of modern species is Mayr's Biological Species Concept (BSC).¹ In fact, whenever we complete a cladistic analysis, we assume reproductive isolation of our terminal taxa because otherwise their similarities could be the product of interbreeding rather than common ancestry. Fundamentally, we all behave as though the BSC is true.     

Birding and DNA: species for the new millennium

Capsule Based on the 1999 Witherby Memorial Lecture – reviews how developments in molecular and population genetics have led to a reappraisal of species limits in birds.

The taxonomy of birds of the West Palearctic has moved from the comparative stability of the ‘Voous List’ into a period of serious activity, with new data emerging in almost every issue of every evolutionary and avian journal! This activity comes from two directions. Firstly, developments in population genetics, molecular biology, acoustics, behaviour and distributional studies have opened new avenues to measuring differentiation among groups of birds. This, in turn, has led to the recognition that earlier views of what constitutes a ‘species’ are in need of modification (‘improvement’), and the emergence of the ‘lineage concept’ of species. I review some of the species concepts most relevant to avian studies, and attempt to show how and why this change has happened, and its consequences for taxonomy and species limits. Examples are given in the form of ‘case studies’, and include Carrion/Hooded Crows Corvus corone/cornix, Green-winged/Eurasian Teals Anas carolinensis/crecca and Phylloscopus warblers.     

An integrative approach to species delineation incorporating different species concepts: a case study of Limnadopsis (Branchiopoda: Spinicaudata)

The unambiguous delineation and identification of species remain central problems in systematic and taxonomic studies. Species delineation depends on the data utilized and the species concept applied. In recent years, morphology‐based species delineation has been complemented by DNA sequence data, leading to an integrative taxonomy. Such integrative approaches, however, are hampered by the partial incongruence of the various data types with certain species concepts. In this study, we delineated Australian Limnadopsis species employing one mitochondrial (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, COI) and one nuclear (elongation factor 1α, EF1α) marker and a morphological character apparently part of the specific mate recognition complex, and therefore potentially indicative of reproductive isolation. By integrating the data over various species concepts (e.g. the ‘biological’, ‘Hennigian’, ‘recognition’, ‘phylogenetic’ and ‘evolutionary’ species concepts), the delineation of most species becomes straightforward and unambiguous. Conflicts are particularly interesting as they reveal different aspects of speciation considering the various species concepts. Our study emphasizes the benefits of a truly integrative approach to taxonomy. By combining molecular data with morphological characters indicative of reproductive isolation, it is possible to delineate species integrating not only different data types, but also different underlying species concepts. Overall, 11 Limnadopsis species could be delineated, including all eight currently recognized species, and three so far undescribed species. Most species were congruently delineated under all species concepts. A strict application of the evolutionary species concept, however, would have further split L. parvispinus into two species on the basis of the COI data. In addition, Limnadopsis tatei is consistently split into two sympatrically occurring species under all applied species concepts. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 104 , 575–599.     

Pitch the niche – taking responsibility for the concepts we use in ecology and species distribution modelling

In a discussion it is often easier to staunchly reject or offer resolute support for an idea. This third paper on the niche concept aims to develop a balanced argument by exploring general principles for determining an appropriate level for pitching the niche concept that will guide better use and less abuse of niche concepts. To do this we first have to accept that niche concepts are not necessarily essential for ecology. Rather than to improve niche concepts, our aim should then be to pitch the niche in terms of ecology. This aim helps us develop an ‘ultimate goal of the niche’ by which we can evaluate the concepts we use. For species distribution modelling, there has been a focus on the niche as an equilibrium outcome that perhaps has less relevance for disequilibrium situations (e.g. climate change projections). As is the case for much of ecology, more causal explanations of species' distributions use alternative terminologies and less frequently use the word ‘niche’. We suggest that niche concepts that are better aligned with the rest of ecology could arise from taking more responsibility for our own implementations, and by explaining our models with terms other than niche. A general, holistic niche concept promotes this view and promotes practical thinking about what we are modelling and how we interpret those models, which in turn should help inspire and support innovative modelling approaches in species distribution modelling.     

Detecting cryptic species in sympatry and allopatry: analysis of hidden diversity in Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Modern multilocus molecular techniques are a powerful tool in the detection and analysis of cryptic taxa. However, its shortcoming is that with allopatric populations it reveals phylogenetic lineages, not biological species. The increasing power of coalescent multilocus analysis leads to the situation in which nearly every geographically isolated or semi‐isolated population can be identified as a lineage and therefore raised to species rank. It leads to artificial taxonomic inflation and as a consequence creates an unnecessary burden on the conservation of biodiversity. To solve this problem, we suggest combining modern lineage delimitation techniques with the biological species concept. We discuss several explicit principles on how genetic markers can be used to detect cryptic entities that have properties of biological species (i.e. of actually or potentially reproductively isolated taxa). Using these principles we rearranged the taxonomy of the butterfly species close to Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) ripartii. The subgenus Agrodiaetus is a model system in evolutionary research, but its taxonomy is poorly elaborated because, as a rule, most of its species are morphologically poorly differentiated. The taxon P. (A.) valiabadi has been supposed to be one of the few exceptions from this rule due to its accurately distinguishable wing pattern. We discovered that in fact traditionally recognized P. valiabadi is a triplet of cryptic species, strongly differentiated by their karyotypes and mitochondrial haplotypes.     

Integration, individuality and species concepts

Integration (interaction among parts of an entity) is suggested to be necessary for individuality (contra, Metaphysics and the Origin of Species). A synchronic species is an integrated individual that can evolve as a unified whole; a diachronic lineage is a non-integrated historical entity that cannot evolve. Synchronic species and diachronic lineages are consequently suggested to be ontologically distinct entities, rather than alternative perspectives of the same underlying entity (contra Baum (1998), Syst. Biol. 47, 641–653; de Queiroz (1995), Endless Forms: Species and Speciation, pp. 57–75; Genes, Categories and Species). Species concepts usually refer to either one or the other entity; for instance, the Biological Species Concept refers to synchronic species, whereas the Cladistic Species Concept refers to diachronic lineages. The debate over species concepts has often failed to recognise this distinction, resulting in invalid comparisons between definitions that attempt to delineate fundamentally different entities. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.