[Taxacom] Microspecies (was: GMOs and taxonomy)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi again,
       Well, subspecies of sexual organisms are also recognized on the
basis of morphological (often minor) differences.  However, this does
not prevent them from interbreeding at the edges.
       Likewise, even clonal apomictic populations aren't immune from
such genetic exchange when apomixis breaks down.  For example, I suspect
that some researchers recognize too many dandelion species simply
because they don't have the data that would demonstrate that apomixis
breaks down where such populations meet and overlap.  Perhaps some of
the splitters should refrain from describing microspecies as full
species unless that have some data indicating a probable lack of
apomictic breakdown.  They could always give them subspecies names until
more such data is available.  There seems to be a huge discrepancy
between splitters and lumpers on the numbers of dandelion species.  I
tend to believe that splitters should show more restraint and name
subspecies rather than species when in doubt.
====================================
Richard Jensen wrote:
Hi Ken, 
Apomictic microspecies are usually recognized on the basis of some
(often minor) consistently recognizable morphological difference. That
is, a given microspecies is a population of morphologically uniform
individuals that differ from other such populations. Given that
microspecies are clones, they are by definition reproductively isolated
from other such entities and can be viewed as species by any of various
species concepts, e.g., biological, genetic, morphological, phenetic,
phylogenetic. 
As you note, some consider them separate species and others consider
them variants (formae apomictae) of a single species (splitters vs.
lumpers, respectively). The status they are accorded will depend on the
perspective of the taxonomist dealing with them.