Cited by 48Evolution and Paleontology StudiesPrimate Behavior and EcologyPlant Diversity and Evolution

Primate Taxonomy: Inflation or Real?

Open access
Groves, Colin P.·2014·Annual Review of Anthropology

Abstract

This article reviews changes in primate taxonomy, especially those pertaining to the meaning of the term species, since its inception two and a half centuries ago. Despite continuing discoveries and the involvement of competent practitioners, the adoption of the polytypic species concept, especially underpinned by the biological species concept, ensured that primate taxonomy was in a sorry state by the middle of the twentieth century. In the latter half of the twentieth century, a gradual rethinking of the nature of species took place, and many different species concepts were proposed. The phylogenetic species concept has been widely adopted over the past ∼20 years, sustained by a gradual realization that species are evolutionary lineages. This review provides examples of how the old way of thinking about species hampered our understanding of primate biodiversity and of how the phylogenetic species concept (or the diagnosability criterion under the general lineage concept) has clarified matters, opening them up for discussion. The adoption of this evolutionary view of species has implications for conservation, particularly because it increases recognition of biodiversity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-anthro-102313-030232

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?

  • Recent changes to mammal taxonomy have been bidirectional, often involving both synonymization and new species recognition.

    “Despite controversy over whether this shift constitutes “taxonomic inflation” (e.g., Zachos et al. 2013; Groves 2014), the recent changes to mammal taxonomy have been bidirectional, often involving both synonymization and new species recognition.”
  • Primate species began being split with the publication of Primate Taxonomy (Groves 2001), which initiated a wave of taxonomic revisions that massively increased recognized species richness-176 species (Napier and Napier 1967) versus 376 in MSW3, growing to 522 in MDD2.

    “Primates species began being split with the publication of Primate Taxonomy (Groves 2001), which was controversial at the time but initiated a wave of taxonomic revisions that massively increased their recognized species richness—176 species (Napier and Napier 1967) versus 376 in MSW3, growing to 522 in MDD2 (Groves 2014).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Groves, C. P.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Groves, Colin P.
Venue
Annual Review of Anthropology
Published
2014-10-21
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
27-36
ISSN
  • 0084-6570 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-4290
OpenAlex
W2143194410
Cited by
48
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Review of Anthropology (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
Keywords
primate taxonomy, species concept, biological species concept, phylogenetic species concept, primate conservation

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