Primate Taxonomy: Inflation or Real?
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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.”
From How many mammal species are there now? Updates and trends in taxonomic, nomenclatural, and geographic knowledge (2025) · cites this paper as Groves 2014
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).”
From How many mammal species are there now? Updates and trends in taxonomic, nomenclatural, and geographic knowledge (2025) · cites this paper as Groves 2014
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
- Authors
- Groves, C. P.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Groves, Colin P.
- ORCID
- Groves, Colin P.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Anthropology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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