Species are the main unit used to measure biodiversity, but different preferred diagnostic criteria can lead to very different delineations. For instance, named primate species have more than doubled since 1982. Such increases have been termed "taxonomic inflation" and have been attributed to the widespread adoption of the ′phylogenetic species concept′ (PSC) in preference to the previously popular ′biological species concept′ (BSC). Criticisms of the PSC have suggested taxonomic inflation may be biased toward particular taxa and have unfavourable consequences for conservation. Here, we explore predictors of taxonomic inflation across primate taxa since the initial application of the PSC nearly 40 years ago. We do not find evidence that diversification rate, the rate of lineage formation over evolutionary time, is linked to inflation, contrary to expectations if the PSC identifies incipient species. We also do not find evidence of research effort in fields where work has been suggested to motivate splitting being associated with increases in species numbers among genera. To test the suggestion that splitting groups is likely to increase their perceived risk of extinction, we test whether genera that have undergone more splitting have also observed a greater increase in their proportion of threatened species since the introduction of the PSC. We find no cohesive signal of inflation leading to higher threat probabilities across primate genera. Overall, this analysis sends a positive message that threat statuses of primate species are not being overwhelmingly affected by splitting in line with what has recently been reported for birds. Regardless, we echo warnings that it is unwise for conservation to be reliant on taxonomic stability. Species (however defined) are not independent from one another, thus, monitoring and managing them as such may not meet the overarching goal of conserving biodiversity.
Species are the main unit used to measure biodiversity, but different preferred operational criteria can lead to very different delineations. For instance, named primate species have more than doubled in number since 1982. Such increases have been partly attributed to a shift away from the "biological species concept" (BSC) in favor of less inclusive species criteria. Critics of recent changes in primate taxonomy have suggested taxonomic splitting may be biased toward certain clades and have unfavorable consequences for conservation. Here, we explore predictors of taxonomic splitting across primate taxa since the initial shift away from the BSC nearly 40 years ago. We do not find evidence that net diversification rate, the rate of lineage formation over evolutionary time, is significantly linked to splitting, contrary to expectations if new species concepts and taxonomic methods identify incipient species. We also do not find evidence that research effort in fields where work has been suggested to motivate splitting is associated with increases in species numbers among genera. To test the suggestion that splitting groups is likely to increase their perceived risk of extinction, we test whether genera that have undergone more splitting have also observed a greater increase in their proportion of threatened species since the initial shift away from older taxonomic methods. We find no cohesive signal of taxonomic splitting leading to higher threat probabilities across primate genera. Thus, our analysis suggests that the threat statuses of primate species are not being overwhelmingly driven by splitting. Regardless, we echo warnings that it is unwise for conservation to be reliant on taxonomic stability. Species (however defined) are not independent from one another, thus, monitoring and managing them as such may not meet the overarching goal of conserving biodiversity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.