Are subspecies useful in evolutionary and conservation biology?

The taxonomic rank of subspecies remains highly contentious, largely because traditional subspecies boundaries have sometimes been contradicted by molecular phylogenetic data. The most complete meta-analysis to date, for instance, found that only 3% of traditional avian subspecies represented distinct phylogenetic lineages. However, the global generality of this phenomenon remains unclear due to this previous study's narrow geographic focus on continental Nearctic and Palearctic subspecies. Here, we present a new global analysis of avian subspecies and show that 36% of avian subspecies are, in fact, phylogenetically distinct. Among biogeographic realms we find significant differences in the proportion of subspecies that are phylogenetically distinct, with Nearctic/Palearctic subspecies showing significantly reduced levels of differentiation. Additionally, there are differences between island and continental subspecies, with continental subspecies significantly less likely to be genetically distinct. These results indicate that the overall level of congruence between taxonomic subspecies and molecular phylogenetic data is greater than previously thought. We suggest that the widespread impression that avian subspecies are not real arises from a predominance of studies focusing on continental subspecies in North America and Eurasia, regions which show unusually low levels of genetic differentiation. The broader picture is that avian subspecies often provide an effective short-cut for estimating patterns of intraspecific genetic diversity, thereby providing a useful tool for the study of evolutionary divergence and conservation

Orthogonal projections and bootstrap resampling procedures in the study of infraspecific variation

The effect of an increase in quantitative continuous characters resulting from indeterminate growth upon the analysis of population differentiation was investigated using, as an example, a set of continuous characters measured as distance variables in 10 populations of a rodent species. The data before and after correction for allometric size effects using orthogonal projections were analyzed with a parametric bootstrap resampling procedure applied to canonical variate analysis. The variance component of the distance measures attributable to indeterminate growth within the populations was found to be substantial, although the ordination of the populations was not affected, as evidenced by the relative and absolute positions of the centroids. The covariance pattern of the distance variables used to infer the nature of the morphological differences was strongly influenced by indeterminate growth. The uncorrected data produced a misleading picture of morphological differentiation by indicating that groups of populations differed in size. However, the data corrected for allometric effects clearly demonstrated that populations differed morphologically both in size and shape. These results are discussed in terms of the analysis of morphological differentiation among populations and the definition of infraspecific geographic units.<br>A influência do aumento em caracteres quantitativos contínuos devido ao crescimento indeterminado sobre a análise de diferenciação entre populações foi investigado utilizando como exemplo um conjunto de dados de variáveis craniométricas em 10 populações de uma espécie de roedor. Dois conjuntos de dados, um não corrigido para o efeito alométrico do tamanho e um outro corrigido para o efeito alométrico do tamanho utilizando um método de projeção ortogonal, foram analisados por um procedimento "bootstrap" de reamostragem aplicado à análise de variáveis canônicas. O componente de variância devido ao crescimento indeterminado dentro das populações foi significativo para a maioria das medidas de distâncias, o que não influenciou a ordenação das populações, conforme evidenciado pela posição relativa dos centróides. O padrão de covariância entre as variáveis de distância que foi utilizado para inferir a natureza das diferenças morfológicas foi, no entanto, fortemente influenciado pela variação nas medidas de distâncias dentro das populações. O conjunto de dados não corrigido resultou em uma interpretação errônea sobre a natureza da diferenciação morfológica, sugerindo que as populações diferiram somente em tamanho. O conjunto de dados corrigido para o efeito alométrico, por sua vez, demonstrou claramente que as populações diferiram, não somente no tamanho, mas também na forma. Os resultados são discutidos em termos da diferenciação das populações em forma e tamanho no contexto da definição das unidades geográficas infraspecíficas