Browsing by Author "Heller, R."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Are There Really Twice as Many Bovid Species as We Thought?Publication . Heller, R.; Frandsen, P.; Lorenzen, E. D.; Siegismund, H. R.A major reappraisal of the taxonomy of ungulates (hoofed mammals) was presented in 2011 (Groves and Grubb 2011; G&G henceforth). The reappraisal presents a drastic revision of the taxonomic diversity of the group. It nearly doubles the number of bovid species—a group comprising cattle, bison, buffalo, goats, sheep, and antelopes—currently recognized (IUCN 2012), raising the number of species from 143 to 279. In our opinion, this represents taxonomic inflation; ecotypes or subspecies have been raised to the level of full species based not on new data, but solely on a change in the species concept used (Isaac et al. 2004). As we argue below, the excessive splitting of species is unconvincing in many cases. Furthermore, we warn that such taxonomic inflation in the bovids may impede management and conservation efforts (Isaac et al. 2004; Mace 2004; Frankham et al. 2012). The revised bovid species list of G&G was incorporated into the recently published “Handbook of the Mammals of the World—Volume 2” (Wilson and Mittermeier 2011; HMW henceforth) published in collaboration with the IUCN and Conservation International, 2 of the leading international authorities involved in the conservation of global biodiversity. Whereas G&G is a scientific revision intended for experts in the field, HMW is a multiauthored book series presenting the most up-to-date taxonomy of mammals for a broader readership. Collectively, these two volumes are likely to be highly influential and serve as a guideline for a wide-ranging audience including taxonomists, conservationists, ecologists, biodiversity managers, and policy makers. Any taxonomic revision that doubles the number of species within a family must anticipate critical evaluation, not least when it occurs in a prominent group such as the bovids. Here, we discuss the revision and its potential consequences, which we believe may be detrimental in many respects. The critiques we are raising are two-fold. First, we call into question the scientific grounds for the species splitting in G&G. Second, we criticize HMW for singularly adopting the bovid species list of G&G without subjecting it to critical evaluation. We discuss some of the practical downstream consequences of these actions.
- Is Diagnosability an Indicator of Speciation? Response to "Why One Century of Phenetics Is Enough"Publication . Heller, R.; Frandsen, P.; Lorenzen, E. D.; Siegismund, H. R.Recently (Heller et al. 2013; H&A), we commented on a revision of the bovid taxonomy, which proposes a doubling in the number of recognized species (Groves and Grubb 2011; G&G). The subsequent response by Cotterill et al. (2014; C&A) contains a number of misunderstandings and leaves much of the critique voiced in our paper unanswered, focusing instead on species ontologies and taxonomic history. C&A argue strongly against phenetics, morphospecies, and taxonomic conservatism, ascribing us views that we do not hold and hence confusing the substance of our disagreement. These misconceptions oblige us to clarify our views on certain key issues to avoid being misrepresented. More seriously, however, the authors fail to respond to, or acknowledge, some of our crucial practical concerns, notably the risk of taxonomic inflation (Isaac et al. 2004) posed by their diagnostic phylogenetic species concept (dPSC). Here, we restate a number of our concerns regarding the proposed bovid taxonomy of G&G and discuss their treatment in C&A.