10.5061/DRYAD.82VR1
Heller, Rasmus
University of Copenhagen
Frandsen, Peter
University of Copenhagen
Lorenzen, Eline Dierdre
Natural History Museum
Siegismund, Hans R.
University of Copenhagen
Lorenzen, Eline Deirdre
University of Copenhagen
Data from: Is diagnosability an indicator of speciation? Response to ‘Why
one century of phenetics is enough’
Dryad
dataset
2014
Bovidae
taxonomic inflation
phylogenetic species concept
Bovidae
2014-04-28T20:02:39Z
2014-04-28T20:02:39Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu034
51384 bytes
2
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
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 & Mace 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.
Appendix 1UNSUPPORTED SPLITS IN G&GAppendix 2EXAMPLES OF
INTRASPECIFIC DIAGNOSABILITY BASED ON GENETIC DATA