What, if anything, are species?

This book is an extended argument for abandoning the species rank. Instead, the author proposes that the rank of "species" be replaced by a pluralistic and multi-level view. In such a view, all clades including the smallest identifiable one would be named and studied within a phylogenetic context. What are currently called "species" represent different sorts of things depending on the sort of organisms and processes being considered. This is already the case, but is not formally recognized by those scientists using the species rank in their work. Adopting a rankless taxonomy at all levels would enhance academic studies of evolution and ecology and yield practical benefits in areas of public concern such as conservation. The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license. KEY FEATURES • Proposes the replacement of restrictive species concepts with a pluralistic view • Suggests abandoning the formal taxonomic rank of "species" • Considers zoological, botanical, and microbiological aspects of the species level • Deals with practical issues such as conservation, inventories, and field guide

The Hunting of the SNaRC: A Snarky Solution to the Species Problem

We argue that the logical outcome of the cladistics revolution in biological systematics, and the move towards rankless phylogenetic classification of nested monophyletic groups as formalized in the PhyloCode, is to eliminate the species rank along with all the others and simply name clades. We propose that the lowest level of formally named clade be the SNaRC, the Smallest Named and Registered Clade. The SNaRC is an epistemic level in the classification, not an ontic one. Naming stops at that level because there is no currently acceptable evidence for clades within it, not because no smaller clades exist. Later, included clades may be named. They would then become the SNaRCs, while the original SNaRC would keep its original name. We argue that all theoretical tasks of biology, in evolution and ecology, as well as practical tasks such as conservation assessment, are better approached using this rankless phylogenetic approach

Overlapping fern and Bryophyte hotspots: Assessing ferns as a predictor of Bryophyte diversity

Bryophytes are significant contributors to floristic diversity, but they are often neglected in field surveys and collections. Thus, in order to obtain more accurate estimates of plant richness, there must be reliable estimates of bryophyte diversity. To address this, we examined whether another plant group, namely the ferns, could be used as a surrogate for bryophytes. We used datasets spanning the entire Australian continent for mosses, liverworts, liverworts+hornworts, ferns, and conifers (hornworts were aggregated into the group liverworts+hornworts). Two measures of richness were examined across the continent (as 50 km × 50 km grid cells): uncorrected richness and sample-standardised richness. We calculated the correlations among richness of all of the groups to test the hypothesis that fern diversity predicts bryophyte diversity (because of shared ecological preferences) while conifer diversity does not. Conifers showed very little correlation to either of the four plant groups, whereas ferns were highly correlated to mosses and to a lesser extent to liverworts and liverworts+hornworts. Liverworts, as well as liverworts+hornworts, and mosses were also strongly correlated. These results indicate that surrogates can assist in estimating the diversity and the conservation of other poorly collected plant groups

Organellar genomes of the four-toothed moss, Tetraphis pellucida

Peer reviewe

Continental scale patterns and predictors of fern richness and phylogenetic diversity

Because ferns have a wide range of habitat preferences and are widely distributed, they are an ideal group for understanding how diversity is distributed. Here we examine fern diversity on a broad-scale using standard and corrected richness measures as well as phylogenetic indices; in addition we determine the environmental predictors of each diversity metric. Using the combined records of Australian herbaria, a dataset of over 60,000 records was obtained for 89 genera to infer richness. A molecular phylogeny of all the genera was constructed and combined with the herbarium records to obtain phylogenetic diversity patterns. A hotspot of both taxic and phylogenetic diversity occurs in the Wet Tropics of northeastern Australia. Although considerable diversity is distributed along the eastern coast, some important regions of diversity are identified only after sample-standardization of richness and through the phylogenetic metric. Of all of the metrics, annual precipitation was identified as the most explanatory variable, in part, in agreement with global and regional fern studies. However, precipitation was combined with a different variable for each different metric. For corrected richness, precipitation was combined with temperature seasonality, while correlation of phylogenetic diversity to precipitation plus radiation indicated support for the species-energy hypothesis. Significantly high and significantly low phylogenetic diversity were found in geographically separate areas. These separate areas correlated with different climatic conditions such as seasonality in precipitation. The phylogenetic metrics identified additional areas of significant diversity, some of which have not been revealed using traditional taxonomic analyses, suggesting that different ecological and evolutionary processes have operated over the continent. Our study demonstrates that it is possible and vital to incorporate evolutionary metrics when inferring biodiversity hotspots from large compilations of data

Assessing biodiversity and endemism using phylogenetic methods across multiple taxonomic groups

Identifying geographical areas with the greatest representation of the tree of life is an important goal for the management and conservation of biodiversity. While there are methods available for using a single phylogenetic tree to assess spatial patterns of biodiversity, there has been limited exploration of how separate phylogenies from multiple taxonomic groups can be used jointly to map diversity and endemism. Here, we demonstrate how to apply different phylogenetic approaches to assess biodiversity across multiple taxonomic groups. We map spatial patterns of phylogenetic diversity/endemism to identify concordant areas with the greatest representation of biodiversity across multiple taxa and demonstrate the approach by applying it to the Murray–Darling basin region of southeastern Australia. The areas with significant centers of phylogenetic diversity and endemism were distributed differently for the five taxonomic groups studied (plant genera, fish, tree frogs, acacias, and eucalypts); no strong shared patterns across all five groups emerged. However, congruence was apparent between some groups in some parts of the basin. The northern region of the basin emerges from the analysis as a priority area for future conservation initiatives focused on eucalypts and tree frogs. The southern region is particularly important for conservation of the evolutionary heritage of plants and fishes

Quantifying Phytogeographical Regions of Australia Using Geospatial Turnover in Species Composition

The largest digitized dataset of land plant distributions in Australia assembled to date (750,741 georeferenced herbarium records; 6,043 species) was used to partition the Australian continent into phytogeographical regions. We used a set of six widely distributed vascular plant groups and three non-vascular plant groups which together occur in a variety of landscapes/habitats across Australia. Phytogeographical regions were identified using quantitative analyses of species turnover, the rate of change in species composition between sites, calculated as Simpson's beta. We propose six major phytogeographical regions for Australia: Northern, Northern Desert, Eremaean, Eastern Queensland, Euronotian and South-Western. Our new phytogeographical regions show a spatial agreement of 65% with respect to previously defined phytogeographical regions of Australia. We also confirm that these new regions are in general agreement with the biomes of Australia and other contemporary biogeographical classifications. To assess the meaningfulness of the proposed phytogeographical regions, we evaluated how they relate to broad scale environmental gradients. Physiographic factors such as geology do not have a strong correspondence with our proposed regions. Instead, we identified climate as the main environmental driver. The use of an unprecedentedly large dataset of multiple plant groups, coupled with an explicit quantitative analysis, makes this study novel and allows an improved historical bioregionalization scheme for Australian plants. Our analyses show that: (1) there is considerable overlap between our results and older biogeographic classifications; (2) phytogeographical regions based on species turnover can be a powerful tool to further partition the landscape into meaningful units; (3) further studies using phylogenetic turnover metrics are needed to test the taxonomic areas

Taking the First Steps towards a Standard for Reporting on Phylogenies: Minimum Information about a Phylogenetic Analysis (MIAPA)

In the eight years since phylogenomics was introduced as the intersection of genomics and phylogenetics, the field has provided fundamental insights into gene function, genome history and organismal relationships. The utility of phylogenomics is growing with the increase in the number and diversity of taxa for which whole genome and large transcriptome sequence sets are being generated. We assert that the synergy between genomic and phylogenetic perspectives in comparative biology would be enhanced by the development and refinement of minimal reporting standards for phylogenetic analyses. Encouraged by the development of the Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment (MIAME) standard, we propose a similar roadmap for the development of a Minimal Information About a Phylogenetic Analysis (MIAPA) standard. Key in the successful development and implementation of such a standard will be broad participation by developers of phylogenetic analysis software, phylogenetic database developers, practitioners of phylogenomics, and journal editors. This paper is part of the special issue of OMICS on data standards.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63208/1/omi.2006.10.231.pd