The ‘generalism’ debate: misinterpreting the term in the empirical literature focusing on dietary breadth in insects

We here attempt to show, using three broad insect groups – Lepidoptera (mainly leaf‐chewing larval herbivores and nectar‐sucking adults), parasitic Hymenoptera (mainly endoparasitoids, especially of other insects) and aphids (sap‐sucking plant parasites) – how the terms ‘generalist’, usually equated with levels of phagy (oligo‐ and polyphagy), and ‘specialist’ (monophagy), still in widespread parlance, have often been misrepresented. Probably, the reality of generalism, be that herbivorous, predatory and parasitic, can only be demonstrated by detailed empirical field observations plus the use of high‐resolution molecular (DNA) markers, including sequencing, and thereby determining whether the organism in question is really a homogeneous species population over a wide geographical range, or rather comprises a series of morphologically similar/identical cryptic, host‐adapted specialist populations. In the case of insects, the largest group of terrestrial animals on the planet, even if it can be shown that certain species are indeed polyphagous and feed on a variety of plant hosts (herbivores) or prey species (predators and parasitoids), nevertheless, the range of these food items may be highly selective and restricted, depending on morphological–genetical (biochemical/chemical)–behavioural constraints. In the end, while some animals appear to be generalist, this situation may well be illusory. Our present recognition of the term is at best inappropriate, and at worse, inaccurate, as we demonstrate in the examples given, mostly insects. In the meantime, we suggest that the terms used should be re‐defined as four broad classes of specialism–generalism, although the apparent ‘generalism’ is itself conditional on proof following further empirical analyses.