Cited by 2,007Invertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionPlant Diversity and Evolution

Towards integrative taxonomy

DAYRAT, BENOÎT·2005·Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Abstract

Delineating species boundaries correctly is crucial to the discovery of life's diversity because it determines whether or not different individual organisms are members of the same entity. The gap in communication between the different disciplines currently involved in delimiting species is an important and overlooked problem in the so-called ‘taxonomy crisis’. To solve this problem, it is suggested that taxonomy become integrative, and this integration is seen as the real challenge for the future of taxonomy. ‘Integrative taxonomy’ is defined as the science that aims to delimit the units of life's diversity from multiple and complementary perspectives (phylogeography, comparative morphology, population genetics, ecology, development, behaviour, etc.). Some workers have already collaborated and successfully adopted an integrative approach to taxonomy. However, it is now time for the whole discipline to evolve. A radical change in mentality is needed concerning the creation of names in order to achieve this integration and to prevent the over-abundance of both synonyms and names of doubtful application from worsening. Integrative taxonomy gives priority to species delineation over the creation of new species names. Furthermore, it is emphasized that describing morphological diversity, referred to as ‘morphodiversity’, does not require the naming of any single set of specimens. Seven guidelines are proposed to help integrative taxonomists recognize cases when species are supported by broad biological evidence and therefore are deserving of an official name.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00503.x

Cites

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?

  • Contemporary mammal systematics focuses on evaluating the number of independent lines of evidence that support or refute distinctiveness of a taxon (integrative taxonomy).

    “Contemporary mammal systematics now focuses on evaluating the number of independent lines of evidence that support or refute distinctiveness of a taxon (i.e., integrative taxonomy; Dayrat 2005; Padial”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DAYRAT, B.
Venue
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
Published
2005-06-24
Volume
85
Issue
3
Pages
407-415
ISSN
  • 0024-4066 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-8312
OpenAlex
W1949176574
Cited by
2,007
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 132 · 2025: 128 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 146 · 2022: 138 · 2021: 155 · 2020: 168 · 2019: 147 · 2018: 129 · 2017: 120 · 2016: 96 · 2015: 99 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 57
FWCI
21.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Coleoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
Keywords
integrative taxonomy, species delimitation, species names, synonyms, phylogeography, population genetics, comparative morphology, nomenclature

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