Species concepts and phylogenetic theory : a debate

By Q. Wheeler, R. Meier. 2000

466 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9c4ef35246286dfd9aa22df6329e2b8474413894

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. R. Meier
2. K. D. Hyde
3. Gaurav Vaidya
4. R. Lücking
5. D. Tan
6. Kwong Shiyang
7. Steven Leavitt
8. K. Will

Citations in the corpus

• OPERATIONAL CRITERIA FOR DELIMITING SPECIES (2004, methodology): “This is an odd state of affairs given that two frequently stated empirical goals of systematic biology are: (a) to discover monophyletic groups at higher levels, and 1543-592X/04/1215-0199$14.00 199 200 SITES MARSHALL (b) to discover lineages (i.e., species) at lower levels (Wheeler & Meier 2000).”
• What are fungal species and how to delineate them? (2021, background): “This has led to several alternative recognition criteria, falsely identified as the phylogenetic species recognition (Nixon and Wheeler 1990), such as Hennigian species recognition, which incorporated biological species recognition with a historical component (Meier and Willmann 2000) and autapomorp”
• Autopolyploidy in angiosperms: Have we grossly underestimated the number of species? (2007, unknown): “Comprehensive reviews of species concepts are given in Grant (1981), Templeton (1989), Baum (1992), Rieseberg (1994), Baum & Donoghue (1995), Davis (1997), Levin (2000), Wheeler & Meier (2000), Coyne & Orr (2004), and Futuyma (1998, 2005).”
• How many species of goliath grouper are there? Cryptic genetic divergence in a threatened marine fish and the resurrection of a geopolitical species. (2009, background): “…the most accepted set of criteria for defining a species relying on actual or potential interbreeding, taxonomists have historically relied on one of several versions of the phylogenetic species concept, relying upon a set of diagnosable morphological characters (reviewed in Wheeler & Meier 2000).”
• Undisciplined thinking: morphology and Hennig’s unfinished revolution (2008, unknown): “After all, it offers only arbitrary averages, by contrast with explicitly testable alternatives, such as the phylogenetic species concept (Wheeler & Platnick, 2000).”
• A ‘big data’ approach to global freshwater mussel diversity (Bivalvia: Unionoida), with an updated checklist of genera and species (2021, background): “At mid-century, the Biological Species Concept (Mayr, 1963; Wheeler & Meier, 2000; de Queiroz, 2007) allowed for widespread, highly variable species with distinct-though-conspecific geographical ‘subspecies’.”
• From ‘cryptic species’ to integrative taxonomy: an iterative process involving DNA sequences, morphology, and behaviour leads to the resurrection of Sepsis pyrrhosoma (Sepsidae: Diptera) (2010, methodology): “We would argue that the four main categories of species concepts are covered in Wheeler & Meier (2000): (1) concepts based on reproductive isolation or cohesion typified by the Biological Species Concept (Mayr 2000) and the Hennigian Species Concept (Meier & Willmann 2000); (2) concepts based on…”
• DNA barcoding and taxonomy in Diptera: a tale of high intraspecific variability and low identification success. (2006, background): “…assumes that species should be monophyletic and not only ignores the literature that questions the theoretical justification for this requirement (Wheeler and Meier, 2000), but also the substantial empirical evidence indicating that a large proportion of currently recognized species are…”
• Phenotypic plasticity leads to incongruence between morphology-based taxonomy and genetic differentiation in western Palaearctic tortoises (Testudo graeca complex; Testudines, Testudinidae) (2007, background): “Obviously, species delineation depends on the adopted species concept, and there is an ongoing debate about the benefits and shortcomings of different competing species concepts (e.g. Ereshefsky, 1992; Wheeler and Meier, 2000; Agapow et al., 2004; Coyne and Orr, 2004).”
• The role of hybridization in plant speciation. (2009, unknown): “Comprehensive reviews of species concepts are given elsewhere (18, 19, 37, 41, 58, 59, 66, 97, 155, 203, 216).”
• History and Concepts of Big Plant Genera (2004, background): “…as a dimension into systematic thought and practice (cf. Stevens, 2002: 19); and (6) into the 21st century, explicit challenges to "Linnaean" (more cor ectly rank-based) hierarchical classification and nomenclature (cf. Stevens, 1998, 2002; Mishler, 2000; Wheeler & Meier, 2000; de Queiroz, 2003).”