Taxonomy - questions of terminology

It all depends on your goals. What do taxonomists use if not morphological features in the first place?

This post was edited by Bolivar - 03.10.2005 20: 16

Taxonomists work with taxa. Attributes are used by taxonomists .

to Diogen

I understand your comment, but, tell me, isn't taxonomy an integral part of taxonomy, without which it itself loses its meaning?

This post was edited by Bolivar - 03.10.2005 20: 18

Taxonomy is a part of taxonomy. Taxonomy, precisely as a taxonomy without specifying-the taxonomy of what - is so broad... As for the taxonomy of insects or all Protozoa in general, it would be possible to do without taxonomy. For example, you can use clades or phenogroups. There, the principles are fundamentally different...

4. What is a standard instance?

There are taxa of the species rank, genus rank, family rank, and so on. I will not consider taxa of higher rank than the family. Taxa of the species rank are species, subspecies, and subspecies. Rank of the genus - respectively-genus, subgenus and supergenus.

According to the ICZN (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature), for taxa of the species rank, a single reference specimen is allocated, which characterizes all the characteristics of the taxon and is stored in some large specialized scientific institution and is called the "holotype". If the author of the taxon description wishes to single out a reference specimen of the opposite sex, then it is called an allotype. However, the value of the allotype in the nomenclature is not as great as the value of the holotype: in any case, the holotype is the main reference for such a taxon.

The set of instances used to describe a taxon of a species group is called a type series. A type series can contain only one specimen (holotype). In this case, even if such a specimen is not named as a holotype in the original description, but it is clearly indicated that the taxon is described from a single specimen, such a specimen is considered a holotype by monotype. For example, in 1913 A. Avinov described the subspecies Parnassius charltonius, which was later assigned the species rank, namely Parnassius autocrator, based on a single female from the Golbeck collection - this female was later discovered in the collections of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences and has the status of a holotype by monotype, although in the descriptions of the authors of that time the main specimen from the type series it didn't stand out.

If the type series includes other specimens besides the holotype and possibly the allotype, these specimens are called paratypes. The status of paratypes can be defined as "spare" specimens in case of loss or damage to the holotype. However, if instances of a previously undescribed taxon are found in a series of paratypes, any zoologist can remove these paratypes from the type series and select a new taxon based on them, indicating the holotype and a new series of paratypes; at the same time, he must indicate that he removed the types from the type series and indicate which types were removed.

For the description of protozoa, as a rule, it is very difficult to single out a single reference specimen, so the concept of a hepantotype is introduced - a collection of specimens belonging to a new species, in culture or on a slide, preserved accordingly.

Until the middle of the last century, zoologists did not distinguish, as a rule, a single reference specimen (holotype) from the type series. Such standard series that contain instances that are equivalent until the moment of their revision are called syntype series, and standard instances, respectively, are called syntypes, or, for older authors, kotypes. To ensure compliance with the rules dictated by the ICZN, only reference copies are allocated from such series, which are called lectotypes. Accordingly, the remainder of the series of syntypes after such an act acts as paratypes, and these instances are called paralectotypes.

There are cases when the type material of a taxon of a specific group is lost or destroyed. In this case, you need to designate a new reference instance of the taxon, which is called the neotype. However, the designation of the neotype must be carried out with great care and must be absolutely verified, since since the publication of the neotype designation, this type is the only reference for this taxon.

But the subspecies is always considered after the species.Reproductively isolated -I agree.But genetically I think not(this is just my guess).

I meant simply the order of presentation .

If it is isolated reproductively, then it is also isolated genetically. If we consider the term "genetically" as formed from the words "gene" or"genome". You can also consider this term as formed from the word "genesis" - origin. This is the way the term is used here. Thank you for noticing the inaccuracy.

5. What is a typical view?

Each taxon of the generic group, as well as the species, must have a standard. Since any taxon of the genus group (subgenus, genus, supergenus) is a collection of morphologically similar species, the genus characterizes the species. This type is called a typical view. This species must contain all diagnostic features of the genus and fully characterize the genus. Within a genus, subsets of closely related species can exist that clearly form separate evolutionary branches (directions) - such subsets are usually called subgenera. They should also have standard views. I don't like the category of supergenera, and the reason is simple: a supergenus, as a union of close genera, is a taxonomic entity that is close in meaning to a tribe, and is more likely a taxon of a family group, but semantically it is perceived as a taxon of a generic group.

6. Taxa of the family group

The taxa of the family group unite closely related genera, and are evolutionary rather than nomenclatural entities. A taxon of a family group in the nomenclatural sense must have a type genus, the totality of which fully characterizes the family. In modern taxonomy, there is a tendency to divide the taxa of the family group very much - to distinguish (let's go from below) subtribes, tribes, supertribes, subfamilies, families, and finally superfamilies (the latter, I think, should already be attributed to the group of taxa of the order). This division is a legacy of "numerical" evolutionary trends (phyletics, Hennig cladistics, numerical phenetics, etc.).

7. The three most important principles of nomenclature

The nomenclature of living organisms is based on three major principles: the principle of reference (type specimen, species, genus, family, etc.) (discussed above), the principle of priority, and the principle of homonymy.

8. Priority principle

Any taxon must have one and only one name. If a taxon has been described several times under different names, only the name that was given earlier should be used. For example, for the species Parnassius arctica Eisner, 196? there is a later name Parnassius ammosovi Korshunov, 1988. If the conspecificity (=identity) of these two species is proven, i.e. two names hide the same species, then use the Eisner name. The name Korshunov can simply be reduced to synonyms with the name Eisner, or, if there are grounds for this, the taxon ammosovi can be considered as a subspecies within the species arctica.

9. The principle of homonymy

In zoological nomenclature, no two or more names with the same spelling can exist. If there are such names, the older of the same names should be used (priority principle), and the younger name should be replaced with another one. Such a substitution is usually written in Latin as nom. nov. [nomen novum], the new name assumes the authorship of the person who made this substitution. For example, the genus Otaria described recently by Zhdanko turned out to be a homonym of another name - Otaria Blainville (the first genus was described for Lycaenidae, Lepidoptera, the second genus was established for Pinnipedia, Mammalia). In accordance with the principle of priority, the priority name is the name of Blainville, the name of Zhdanko should have been replaced, which Zhdanko did, replacing it with the name Otnjukovia.

Homonymy for taxa of a group of species can be primary or secondary. Primary homonymy: the names of taxa belong to the same genus as indicated in the original description. For example, Polyommatus alaicus Balletto described in 1988 & Nekrutenko is the primary homonym of the name given in 1890 by Grum-Grzhimailo to another pigeon taxon: Polyommatus thersamon alaicus Grum-Grshimailo. Taxa described as species or subspecies (variations) are equivalent for the homonymy principle.The last name will be considered in the trinomain, since it has the status of the name of a group of species. If a taxon described in one genus was later moved to another genus, and another taxon was found to have the same name in the same genus, this homonymy is called secondary. For example, as part of the genus Papilio, Denis and Schiffermuller described the species Papilio vau-album Denis et Schiffermuller, and later this species was transferred to the genus Nymphalis, where there are taxa with the same name given by Esper and Berger later. These names should be replaced with other names.

Homonyms are designated not only as primary and secondary, but also as senior and junior. A senior homonym is a name given earlier than others. For example, for Polyommatus alaicus, the name given by Grum-Grzhimailo is the senior (as earlier) primary homonym of the name given by Balletto and Nekrutenko, which in turn is the junior (as later) primary homonym.

10. Synonymy

Some of the taxa described may be identical to those described earlier. In this case, the term synonyms is used. Both of these names turn out to be synonyms, one of which is a senior synonym (older name), and the other is a junior synonym (younger name). If a synonym is found, one of the names (younger) is removed from the zoological nomenclature, and the person who found the synonym must report it in print using the combination syn. n. [synonym nova].

Type instance only for taxa of the species group. Then-incrementally (for the genus-type species, for the family-type genus, etc.) .

A super-type is more likely when taxonomists simply cannot understand whether all these subsets should be included in one type, or whether they should be divided. especially if the taxa within the "superspecies" are terribly polymorphic. For example, the Pieris napi subspecies... Here a leg and the devil will break .

Oh! What an inconvenience!
And the subspecies???
Why can't you select a finite unit? Because everything is growing and developing?

Who said it would be easy?!
Taxonomy is a science related, among other things, to evolutionary issues, and not just compiling a catalog of species, so that we do not get confused Evolution did not end with a worldwide flood or the death of mammoths, it is now underway. And things like the napi group (superviews) are proof of this. In fact, all these forms with unclear status, which are sometimes called "semi-species", are very young, not completely isolated species. A subspecies is a little different. If there is a species with a wide (or disjunctive) range, and different populations live in different conditions and do not mix, then differences in subspecies rank are gradually formed. And the areas of "half-species" may not be particularly vicarious, there is a different mechanism, which exactly - I can not say with sufficient certainty.
At least, that's what I was taught.

Taxonomists work with taxa. Attributes are used by taxonomists .

to Dzanat: Diogen still 19.09. about this said The shape of the genitals, as well as other morphological defining features (body shape, color, etc., etc.) - these are exactly the SIGNS, external manifestations of the isolation of taxa. Besides, nothing really ends on the genitals. It happens that the genitals of different species are not so different from each other. For example, there are two species of whiteflies-Pontia daplidice and Pontia edusa, which do not have any stable morphological differences from each other. They were divided according to BIOCHEMICAL indicators, so the taxonomy is not so simple, the study and description of morphology is not limited to

Morphology is what morphology is all about, so that you can study the signs. These attributes are used to evaluate the status of taxa, BUT!!! do not forget that any estimates given by a person are subjective. As an example-constant changes in the status of many taxa, disputes over similar forms, etc. You don't need to go far for examples - Colias australis, Colias alfacariensis, Colias saretensis - what is it ? Reissinger in 1989 published a multi-page monograph on alfacariensis, described many subspecies - but made absolutely no clarity on this issue. Korshunov tried to change something in one of his Additions (in 1998) - and also nothing. These fluctuations will always haunt us, because indeed, subspecies are a path to separation at the species level, if a subspecies is isolated for a long time - it will acquire its own characteristics, fix them genetically and will not be able to produce viable offspring when in contact with representatives of other "subspecies". Formation goes on as usual, we have no power to change anything here - our view of taxonomy and definition of taxa is only a cast from an instant piece of the evolutionary tree of Life on the planet .

Thanks for the material, Diogen. Really useful information.
However, posts after 12: 14 are more likely to refer to the nomenclature, which, as you know, does not interfere with the actual taxonomy by its rules. In addition, nomenclature is not a science, and its problems are not scientific problems, but only... "organizational"services
I'll add a little more about the principles.

About the suitability and validity of names.

The name of the taxon that should be used is called valid, valid, or correct. A valid name is selected among the names that are suitable according to the ICZN rules. A suitable name can be either valid or invalid. The suitability of a name is determined by several criteria: publication of the name after January 1, 1758, Latin or Latinized spelling, etc.
Of course, in order to qualify at all, the title must be published in the official scientific press. If, for some reason, it is not possible to publish a name that meets all the requirements of the Code's suitability, then some obviously unsuitable name, such as a number, is published instead of the Latin name, so that this name does not claim to be suitable any further. The name of a species or subspecies becomes valid only if it was published as a binomial at the very beginning. In the future, its belonging to a particular genus can still be changed without prejudice to the actual name.

The principle of coordination

All names that fall under the Codex rule, as Diogen has repeatedly said, are divided into three groups: specific, generic, and family group. In each of these three groups, the principle of coordination applies, which is expressed as follows. In a species group, a name that is suitable as a species is automatically also suitable as a subspecies, with the same authorship and date. And vice versa.
The same applies to the generic group: the name of the genus is suitable as a subgenus, and it, in turn, is suitable as a generic, while retaining both authorship and date when changing the rank. As a result, when choosing a valid name for a genus (subgenus), it must be selected from suitable generic and subgeneric names, and not just generic (subgenus) ones.
As a result of this principle, one of the subgenera of the genus inevitably turns out to be the same name as the genus; such a subgenus is called nominative (the same terminology is used for a species group - nominative subspecies).
The principle of coordination in a family group differs from the principle of coordination in a specific and generic group, because the names of the family group are still typified, formed from the name of the generic group with different endings. The principle of coordination here means that the authorship and date of any name of a family group extends to all other names of this group formed from the same generic name.
Coordination in the family and genus groups is carried out independently, which may result, for example, in the absence of the genus from which the family name is derived in the family.

But, as already mentioned, all this is nomenclature, not true taxonomy. The task of taxonomy is to build a classification of living organisms.

I agree with the previous speaker . But without nomenclature in zoosystematics, nowhere. Otherwise, there will be confusion and confusion .

By the way, who can give clear definitions of the concepts of "morph" and "form", otherwise I'm a little confused in them. And is it legitimate to call the phase a morph, as they sometimes do?

By the way, who can give clear definitions of the concepts of "morph" and "form", otherwise I'm a little confused in them. And is it legitimate to call the phase a morph, as they sometimes do?

And it's not surprising, because it's the same thing, only in Greek and Latin
Morphs are supposed to be individuals that have significant external differences from the general population, such as melanists or albinos. And the form is like a systematic category below the view. But in fact, almost everywhere the word form is used in both senses,for example, albino form, etc.

What do you mean, a phase? The stage of metamorphosis?

Phase - in the sense of herd and solitary. I've seen the gen. sp. morpha gregaria spelling a couple of times.

Let me answer your first questions.

Morph is an intrapopulation category that differs morphologically. In general, it is necessary to read Semenov-Tien-Shan. There seems to be.

Dracus
"But at the same time, a morph is also called a seasonal form, for example, Araschnia levana morpha prorsa L.. So as for "they use the form everywhere", I would like to disagree."
Well, you see, you used the "seasonal form" where it seems to be necessary to write "seasonal morph"
That is, if you wrote something like "Variegated moth flies in two morphs/forms, summer and autumn", then what would you write?
As for the form as a systematic category, I don't think zoology uses it at all, and botany uses varietet instead.

As for the definition of a species, I have the following opinion: if individuals of different "species" interbreed, and their offspring are productive in several generations, then this is one species, or so far one species, despite the other, non-reproductive, isolation and different phenotypes.

"Reproductive isolation - different species cannot interbreed, they are prevented from doing so by physical and / or behavioral characteristics.
Genetic isolation - species interbreed, but do not produce offspring (chromosomes do not conjugate)."

And there are examples when different species can interbreed(the zygote develops), but cannot, how should I put it, copulate?
And what does the conjugation of chromosomes have to do with it, you wanted to say that gametes merge, but the zygote does not develop as plozheno? But this is exactly what crossbreeding is, but offspring are not viable just yet.

This post was edited by sealor - 07.10.2005 22: 56

I'm very sorry, but ...
1. why "geographical isolation" if there is reproductive isolation??
2. with what ??? is genetic isolation different from reproductive isolation??
are these terms synonymous? or one part of the other.
Once again, I apologize very much, but your definition is a hybrid of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, I am now in the yard of the 21st.
It was strange to read
If a subspecies is reproductively isolated, it is a species.

I have a Diogenetic question that is very close to you.

What is a subspecies from the point of view of a lipidopterologist? What percentage of the population should have distinct markers? How this is solved practically when selecting a subspecies. For example, the Parnassians, whom you know well. They are very variable. And in the same population of the same subspecies, it is probably not difficult to find specimens similar to other subspecies. How do entomologists identify new subspecies in this situation? Do I need to have some basic marker, such as a noticeable difference in pollination in uralka compared to viedingiri?
Although I have a purely theoretical interest, I am very curious and would like to hear the opinion of a super-professional. And with the definition of the species, for the third time I apologize, you, like many zoologists, are completely confused. This is probably not a devil, but A. A. Lyubishchev, with his natural taxonomy, confused you.

Basically, you've already been answered... Just add that "genetic" is a term formed not from the word "gene", but from the word "genesis", and this is written in one of my posts in this thread. As they say, we hear a bell, but we don't know where it is ?

My definition is a simplified version of Professor Kuzyakin's definition - so far not everyone can confidently use the necessary terminology in this forum. However strange it may seem to you to read this definition .

As for Parnassus, there is only one way - to look for differences at the level of genesis, to look for already established features, and to use them. As noted at the Congress of Soviet Lepidopterologists in 1986, representatives of Parnassius rarely migrate from the limits of their population for more than one and a half kilometers - therefore, the possibility of microevolutionary processes is very high. And therefore, a considerable number of subspecies are described. I tend to think that most of them are real branches of evolution that should be reflected in the system. As an example of this - high-altitude Parnassus. The island effect leads to the impossibility of interbreeding between seemingly closely located populations-hence the various signs. Some experts put such populations under clonal variability, but this, in my opinion, is just an attempt to simplify the system. If there is a divergence, you can't hide it.

For me personally, taxonomy is an apparatus for formo - and faunogenetic constructions. Moreover, it is mountain faunas that are most interesting; there are many works on the genesis of forms and faunas of both domestic and foreign authors on lowland faunas. Besides, I'm just interested in the mountains - I love them . As Vysotsky sang - "Only mountains can be better than mountains that you haven't been to yet" ...

Diogen
Sorry, but here I have a question, just in terms of terminology. And what, taxonomists usually use the expression "genesis", and, for example, the expression "genetic traits" how to understand in this context?
In general, according to your explanation, you can understand that "genesis" is a term, since if you look at the linguistic difference between a gene and genesis, it is practically nonexistent. But "gene" is a term from genetics, and "genesis"?

And your definition of species is really strange, do you think that this is the most accurate modern definition? Give it completely according to Kuzyakin, if it is not difficult?

I can't tell you exactly about Kuzyakin right now - his article is in Russia, at home, I'm in Athens, in Greece. I like the definition . Even cuter. Genesis is the origin. Taxonomy reflects first of all evolution, and accordingly, genesis is one of the points that need to be operated on. I am a proponent of evolutionary taxonomy .

I don't like concepts like "modern" or "latest". I like it better - "correct", "complete".

I am a proponent of evolutionary taxonomy .

Well I didn't doubt it

But still, it seems that modern taxonomy continues to live its own life, which often diverges from the natural system of organisms. The names of genera often change, new species appear and disappear, and everything is on paper, on paper
For example, for a few years it was Ciclosternum fasciatum, then it became Davus fasciatus, and then one fine morning a month later it became Ciclosternum fasciatum again. In what processes

This is only a shuffle . The view is as it was, and remains. An example is the ichnotaxon Parnassius. It's all too simplistic.. Korshunov gave, in my opinion, the most correct system of this ichnotaxon, but did not bother to justify it...

to sealor

to guest_n

Ask a specific question and get a specific answer. If you asked a question in a smudged way, you got a smudged answer .

There are no secrets. If there's anything I can do to help, I'll do it. By the way, I'm not a super-professional, as you put it - I'm in constant search and self-study, and if you can convince me, then welcome But-except for phrases like "it's already the 21st century, there is only reproductive isolation", etc. - these are just statements that either make no sense in our discussion at all, or claim to be They are not proven to be axiomatic, and apparently we should all take them for granted here .

Sorry, no offense - but in a dispute, I like first of all the evidentiary component, which I didn't see in your case...

To Dracus

Why did he overdo it with the selection of labor? If we proceed from the evaluation of the set of features , everything is fine there. For example, females of Kreizbergius as far as I remember have no sphragis (correct me if I'm wrong - I haven't seen females of Kreizbergius for a long time), and males have absolutely interesting scaly valvae . Well, the other two genera are also interesting - Driopa with absolutely different from other LOWLAND forms (in the mountains it occupies stations characteristic of the plains - the forest-meadow belt, in the subalpic it only feeds) trophic confinement, and Sachaia with a very primitive pattern and very peculiar male genitalia.

to Diogen

  to Diogen

Well, you're a lepidopterist, and you know better. I just don't understand the need to split up such a familiar genus Parnassius into several smaller ones.
In general, are there any generally accepted criteria for highlighting this or that kind?

to Bolivar
In other words, the reasons for differences - seasonal or mutations-are not specified?

And another question - if the form is a systemat. if the category is lower than the subspecies, then does the principle of coordination in the species group apply to it?

Necessity - creating a natural system. What was the need to divide the genera Sphynx, Noctua, Tinea, and Papilio, which Linnaeus was familiar with, into as many as they are now?.

Morph, shape, aberration - these are all deviations, they are not systematic categories. Seasonal forms that are also not systematic categories are now commonly referred to as generatio (for example, Araschnia levana levana gen. levana, A. l. levana gen. prorsa, etc., or simply by season - gen.aest. for example .

They can't differ - they are just terms in different languages, but with the same meaning (I mean morph and form). Until 1961, they could be used to designate taxa of a specific group. Not after that.

I didn't answer the question about the criteria for selecting the genus for the simple reason that I will have to write a lot. For a genus is not a species, and you can't touch it with your hands... Unfortunately, I don't have time to write a lot right now .

And Mayer was right, supraspecific taxa are completely subjective. Someone establishes the "genus" purely by morphology, someone attracts biological features, someone else does something else. Moreover, different groups have their own criteria for evaluating "gender". Recently, for example, in erectoptera, excessive fragmentation prevails with the allocation of many not only generic taxa, but also the assignment of previously considered representatives of the same genus (for example, Bryodema) to species in different subfamilies!!! Especially in this regard, the Chinese are zealous (Bryodemella holdereri-Bryodemellinae; Bryodema gebleri - Bryodeminae).

2secondary Specialist:
Regarding Bryodemellinae, this is already absurd. But in general... For example, what is the point of separating Omocestus and Myrmeleotettix? Bicolorana and Roeseliana (or maybe both in Metrioptera)?

2PVOzerski
No one bothers to consider the genus with subgenera, for example, Metrioptera (subgenera: Metrioptera s. str., Eobiana, Bicolorana, Roeseliana...); Chorthippus (subgenera: Chorthippus s. str., Glyptobothrus, Altichorthippus, Megaulacobothrus...). IMHO there is a trade-off. But in this case, you have to adjust the rest of the system to "this standard".