[Taxacom] Metapopulation lineage species concept

Wed Oct 14 10:45:12 CDT 2009

In a seminal paper (at least seminal to those of us who study oaks), 
Bill Burger discussed the nature of species in wide-ranging taxa of oaks 
(Quercus). As he noted, a species, such as Quercus macrocarpa, consists 
of many widely separated populations, yet we have no problem recognizing 
the coherence of these as a taxonomic species (employing a classic 
morphological or phenetic species concept), whether in New York state or 
Tennessee. Clearly, given their widely disjunct status, these 
populations are experiencing different selective regimes and, at any 
point in time, may be (most likely are) on different evolutionary 
trajectories.

The fundamental problem is, how do we decide how much different these 
trajectories must be before we make the decision to view them as 
separate species? What if the current trajectories, as a consequence of 
climate change or other vagaries of nature, converge. Then we have one 
species that was split into two species that have now reconstituted a 
single species. Is this an evolutionary extinction or simply a 
nomenclatural extinction? Did we learn anything by splitting 
(temporarily) the single species into two or more 
"evolutionary-trajectory species"?

As you probably know, Burger's insights were influential in the 
development of van Valen's ecological species concept.

Cheers,

Dick J

Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary’s College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674

Jody Haynes wrote:
> Thanks, Alex. Point taken.
>
> As a non-taxonomist who has described new species and who has struggled his entire professional life with various species concepts, I find de Queiroz's simplistic and elegant explanation of "the species problem" both refreshing and illuminating. Specifically, according to my understanding of the "general metapopulation lineage concept of species," the fact that two groups of connected populations are evolving separately is sufficient for them to be considered separate species, regardless of whether the two groups have acquired any or all of the properties that those who adhere to any of the 20+ contemporary species concepts would consider as 'necessary' for the two groups to be considered valid species (i.e., intrinsic reproductive isolation, monophyly, ecological distinctness, diagnosability, etc.). The actual 'contingent' properties involved (or recognized as 'important') are irrelevant; rather, it is the very fact that the two groups currently have separate evolutionary t
>  rajectories that is sufficient for them to be considered distinct species. From a conceptual standpoint, this generalized species concept represents a significant paradigm shift away from the 20+ myopically focused (and admittedly biased) 'species concepts' and toward a unified concept that is more inclusive and more general-with the 20+ myopic concepts now appropriately relegated to nothing more than specific examples of the general concept. In application, I see this as a significant advance as well. because now one simply needs to present (and justify) a testable hypothesis as to how any given group (metapopulation lineage) is distinct from other such groups as a means of identifying (or circumscribing) a species. Different approaches of study (and types of data gathered) will obviously focus on different 'contingent' properties, but the ultimate goal is simplified because one simply needs to show how a given group of populations are connected genetically and evolving se
>  parately from other such groups.
>
>
>
> Bracing for the tsunami...
>
>
>
> Jody
>
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Chapman, Alex 
>   To: Jody Haynes ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
>   Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 2:27 AM
>   Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Metapopulation lineage species concept
>
>
>   Dear Jody,
>
>   You will get more bites from this list if you first put forward your own
>   interpretation, then wait for the inevitable backlash.
>   If you can get 'orangutan' or 'chimpanzee' into that interpretation, so
>   much the better for a subsequent tsunami of postings!
>
>   Alex
>   ____ 
>   Alex R. Chapman                    Email: alexc at dec.wa.gov.au 
>   FloraBase Manager              http://florabase.dec.wa.gov.au 
>   Research Scientist           Voice/Fax: +61 8 9334 0513 /0515 
>   WA Herbarium   -   Department of Environment and Conservation 
>   Locked Bag 104 Bentley Delivery Centre Western Australia 6983
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jody Haynes
>   Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 2009 11:44 AM
>   To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Metapopulation lineage species concept
>
>   Is it safe to assume that no response to the listserve in regards to my
>   query from last Friday indicates a lack of interest in discussing this
>   issue?
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Jody Haynes
>     To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>     Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 10:13 AM
>     Subject: [Taxacom] Metapopulation lineage species concept
>
>
>     Dear TAXACOMers:
>
>     I just finished reading a couple papers by Kevin de Queiroz from 2005
>   on the metapopulation lineage concept of species (see URLs below). I was
>   hoping to get some feedback on this species concept and its various
>   implications in taxonomy. If this subject has been discussed here
>   already, then please accept my apologies for re-initiating discussion.
>
>    
>   http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/4504/1/VZ_2005deQBioEssays.
>   pdf
>     http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6600.full#sec-7
>
>     Kindest regards,
>     Jody Haynes
>     Miami, FL
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Taxacom Mailing List
>     Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>     http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>     The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
>   these methods:
>
>     (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>     Or (2) a Google search specified as:
>   site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>   _______________________________________________
>
>   Taxacom Mailing List
>   Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>   The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
>   these methods:
>
>   (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>   Or (2) a Google search specified as:
>   site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>   This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the
>   addressee only. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
>   If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify
>   the sender, delete the email and attachments from your system and
>   destroy any copies you may have taken of the email and its attachments.
>   Duplication or further distribution by hardcopy, by electronic means
>   or verbally is not permitted without permission.
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>   