Quantitative criteria for species delimitation
Abstract
Species are the fundamental units of biology, ecology and conservation, and progress in these fields is therefore hampered by widespread taxonomic bias and uncertainty. Numerous operational techniques based on molecular or phenotypic data have been designed to overcome this problem, yet existing procedures remain subjective or inconsistent, particularly when applying the biological species concept. We address this issue by developing quantitative methods for a classic technique in systematic zoology, namely the use of divergence between undisputed sympatric species as a yardstick for assessing the taxonomic status of allopatric forms. We calculated mean levels of differentiation in multiple phenotypic characters – including biometrics, plumage and voice – for 58 sympatric or parapatric species‐pairs from 29 avian families. We then used estimates of mean divergence to develop criteria for species delimitation based on data‐driven thresholds. Preliminary tests show that these criteria result in relatively few changes to avian taxonomy in Europe, yet are capable of extensive reassignment of species limits in poorly known tropical regions. While we recognize that species limits are in many cases inherently arbitrary, we argue that our system can be applied to the global avifauna to deliver taxonomic decisions with a high level of objectivity, consistency and transparency.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In combination these characters indicate a level of differentiation compatible with species rank for nigrescens, and this is strongly reflected in Tobias criteria scoring.
“In combination these characters indicate a level of differentiation compatible with species rank for nigrescens, and this is strongly reflected in Tobias criteria scoring.”
From Species rank for Rheinardia ocellata nigrescens (Phasianidae) (2020) · cites this paper as Tobias et al. 2010
Using Tobias et al. (2010) criteria, museum skins alone provide a sufficiently high score (8) to indicate that R. nigrescens and R. ocellata merit species status.
“Using the Tobias et al. (2010) criteria, museum skins alone provide a sufficiently high score (8) to indicate that R. nigrescens and R. ocellata merit species status.”
From Species rank for Rheinardia ocellata nigrescens (Phasianidae) (2020) · cites this paper as Tobias et al. (2010)
The Tobias et al. (2010) scoring system sets a threshold of 7 for species status, with character scores 4 exceptional, 3 major, 2 medium, 1 minor; only three plumage, two vocal, two biometric and one behavioural/ecological character may be counted.
“a threshold of 7 is set to allow species status, species status cannot be triggered by minor characters alone, and only three plumage characters, two vocal characters, two biometric characters (assessed for effect size using Cohen's d where 0.2-2 is minor, 2-5 medium, 5-10 major and >10 exceptional) and one behavioural or ecological character (allowed 1) may be counted.”
From Species rank for Rheinardia ocellata nigrescens (Phasianidae) (2020) · cites this paper as Tobias et al. 2010
Cites
DNA barcoding: error rates based on comprehensive sampling
Meyer, C. P., & Paulay, G. (2005) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030422 · Cited by 1,957 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Burgin, C. J., Zijlstra, J. S., Becker, M. A., Handika, H., Alston, J. M., Widness, J., Liphardt, S., Huckaby, D. G., & Upham, N. S. (2025) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyaf047 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Species rank for Rheinardia ocellata nigrescens (Phasianidae)
Davison, G. W. H., Boesman, P., Collar, N. J., & Puan, C. L. (2020) · Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club · doi:10.25226/bboc.v140i2.2020.a9 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- TOBIAS, J. A., SEDDON, N., SPOTTISWOODE, C. N., PILGRIM, J. D., FISHPOOL, L. D. C., & COLLAR, N. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- BirdLife international (GB)
- Corresponding author
- TOBIAS, JOSEPH A.
- Venue
- Ibis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08-17
- Volume
- 152
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 724-746
- ISSN
- 0019-1019 (ISSN-L)
- 1474-919X
- OpenAlex
- W2142788494
- Cited by
- 1,092
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 150 · 2023: 140 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 419 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 11.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ibis (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
- Keywords
- species delimitation, quantitative criteria, bird taxonomy, phenotypic differentiation, plumage, bird song, biometrics, biological species concept, taxonomic bias
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