CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 87Genetic diversity and population structureEvolution and Paleontology StudiesPlant Diversity and Evolution

A paradigm shift in our view of species drives current trends in biological classification

Padial, José M., De la Riva, Ignacio·2021·Biological Reviews
DOI 10.1111/brv.12676
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Discontent about changes in species classifications has grown in recent years. Many of these changes are seen as arbitrary, stemming from unjustified conceptual and methodological grounds, or leading to species that are less distinct than those recognised in the past. We argue that current trends in species classification are the result of a paradigm shift toward which systematics and population genetics have converged and that regards species as the phylogenetic lineages that form the branches of the Tree of Life. Species delimitation now consists of determining which populations belong to which individual phylogenetic lineage. This requires inferences on the process of lineage splitting and divergence, a process to which we have only partial access through incidental evidence and assumptions that are themselves subject to refutation. This approach is not free of problems, as horizontal gene transfer, introgression, hybridisation, incorrect assumptions, sampling and methodological biases can mislead inferences of phylogenetic lineages. Increasing precision is demanded through the identification of both sister relationships and processes blurring or mimicking phylogeny, which has triggered, on the one hand, the development of methods that explicitly address such processes and, on the other hand, an increase in geographical and character data sampling necessary to infer/test such processes. Although our resolving power has increased, our knowledge of sister relationships – what we designate as species resolution – remains poor for many taxa and areas, which biases species limits and perceptions about how divergent species are or ought to be. We attribute to this conceptual shift the demise of trinominal nomenclature we are witnessing with the rise of subspecies to species or their rejection altogether; subspecies are raised to species if they are found to correspond to phylogenetic lineages, while they are rejected as fabricated taxa if they reflect arbitrary partitions of continuous or non‐hereditary variation. Conservation strategies, if based on taxa, should emphasise species and reduce the use of subspecies to avoid preserving arbitrary partitions of continuous variation; local variation is best preserved by focusing on biological processes generating ecosystem resilience and diversity rather than by formally naming diagnosable units of any kind. Since many binomials still designate complexes of species rather than individual species, many species have been discovered but not named, geographical sampling is sparse, gene lineages have been mistaken for species, plenty of species limits remain untested, and many groups and areas lack adequate species resolution, we cannot avoid frequent changes to classifications as we address these problems. Changes will not only affect neglected taxa or areas, but also popular ones and regions where taxonomic research remained dormant for decades and old classifications were taken for granted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/brv.12676

Cites

185 of 185 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

13 of the 198 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Padial, J. M., & De la Riva, I.
Affiliations
  • American Museum of Natural History (US)
  • Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales‐CSIC José Gutiérrez Abascal 2 Madrid 28006 Spain
Corresponding author
Padial, José M.
ORCID
Padial, José M.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-12-23
Volume
96
Issue
2
Pages
731-751
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
DOI
10.1111/brv.12676
OpenAlex
W3114732641
Cited by
85
References
198
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
Keywords
species delimitation, species concept, phylogenetic lineages, tree of life, subspecies, population genetics, horizontal gene transfer, introgression, hybridization, sister relationships, taxonomic classification, conservation strategies, sampling bias
MeSH terms
Genetics, Population, Geography, Phylogeny, Ecosystem

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review