Deceiving insects, deceiving taxonomists? Making theoretical sense of taxonomic disagreement in the European orchid genus Ophrys

Cuypers, Vincent; Reydon, Thomas A. C.; Artois, Tom

doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2022.125686

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is, for example, the case of the Orchidaceae family, which comprises more than 30,000 named species [Plants of the World Online [POWO], 2022], including some of the most threatened species in the world (Fay, 2018), but in which species boundaries are sometimes blurred (Barrett and Freudenstein, 2011;Pessoa et al, 2012). Within this family, the Mediterranean genus Ophrys L. is of particular interest, due to its high level of ecological specialization and endemism rate, but it is also considered as a textbook example of taxonomic confusion (Bertrand et al, 2021;Cuypers et al, 2022), which may affect its conservation (Agapow et al, 2004;Pillon and Chase, 2007;Vereecken et al, 2010;Schatz et al, 2014). Some of this confusion arises from conflicting views on which operational criteria should be used to delimit species in this genus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Delimiting species in the taxonomically challenging orchid section Pseudophrys: Bayesian analyses of genetic and phenotypic data

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate species delimitation is critical for biodiversity conservation. Integrative taxonomy has been advocated for a long time, yet tools allowing true integration of genetic and phenotypic data have been developed quite recently and applied to few models, especially in plants. In this study, we investigated species boundaries within a group of twelve Pseudophrys taxa from France by analyzing genetic, morphometric and chemical (i.e., floral scents) data in a Bayesian framework using the program integrated Bayesian Phylogenetics and Phylogeography (iBPP). We found that these twelve taxa were merged into four species when only genetic data were used, while most formally described species were recognized as such when only phenotypic (either morphometric or chemical) data were used. The result of the iBPP analysis performed on both genetic and phenotypic data supports the proposal to merge Ophrys bilunulata and O. marmorata on the one hand, and O. funerea and O. zonata on the other hand. Our results show that phenotypic data are particularly informative in the section Pseudophrys and that their integration in a model-based method significantly improves the accuracy of species delimitation. We are convinced that the integrative taxonomic approach proposed in this study holds great promise to conduct taxonomic revisions in other orchid groups.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Delimiting species in the taxonomically challenging orchid section Pseudophrys: Bayesian analyses of genetic and phenotypic data

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the governance of bird taxonomy through a democratic process seems a better way forward than de facto governance by single authorities. Currently, authorities, such as biodiversity databases, conservation authorities such as the IUCN, or policymakers, can choose a taxonomy in function of their own interests, and it has been argued that a taxonomic community can increase its leverage by setting a standard itself (Cuypers et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As said, this trade-off is very apparent in the case of biological species. It has been shown that crosscutting taxonomies often result from different emphasizes, for example on ecological versus evolutionary aspects, each relevant in their own contexts (Cuypers et al, 2022). This might be seen as an argument for a position called taxonomic pluralism, where the coexistence of different taxonomies is allowed, and even encouraged.…”

Section: Governance and Conceptual Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving Conceptual Conflicts through Voting

Cuypers

Block

2023

Found Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific activities strongly depend on concepts and classifications to represent the world in an orderly and workable manner. This creates a trade-off. On the one hand, it is important to leave space for conceptual and classificatory criticism. On the other hand, agreement on which concepts and classifications to use, is often crucial for communication and the integration of research and ideas. In this paper, we show that this trade-off can sometimes be best resolved through conceptual governance, in which scientific institutions set a collective conceptual standard, and that voting can be a reasonable way to implement that governance. Voting is a means to simultaneously aggregate among conflicting values, preferences and priorities that often underpin conceptual or classificatory debates, all while signaling ongoing disagreement. We also discuss how the legitimacy of the voting process and its outcome can be ensured.

show abstract

“…Just like scientists in other disciplines, taxonomists have to make a long range of conceptual and methodological choices in their research, and these choices affect the outcomes of their research (Cuypers et al 2022;Faurby et al 2016;Willis 2017;Zachos 2022) (Schlick-Steiner et al 2010). With many different legitimate species concepts, evidence types, analysis methods, and sampling regions and strategies to choose from, it should be no surprise that two taxonomists investigating the same organisms sometimes come to different taxonomic conclusions, particularly if many of these choices remain implicit.…”

Section: Why Taxonomy Needs Preregistrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some represent reproductively isolated groups, some the smallest groups diagnosable by some morphological character, others monophyletic clades in a phylogenetic tree built using molecular markers, and yet others are groups that meet some threshold of genetic similarity. For many groups of organisms, particularly in charismatic taxa such as birds, mammals and orchids, these diverging taxonomic approaches lead to the circulation of multiple, incompatible classifications (Cuypers et al, 2022;Heller et al 2013;McClure et al 2020;Neate-Clegg et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A plea for preregistration in taxonomy

CONIX¹,

Cuypers

Zachos

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are notoriously many different definitions of species and methods of species delimitation, forcing taxonomists to make a long range of methodological decisions in species delimitation. Because of this, there are sometimes multiple viable competing methodological paths, which could lead to different ranking (or even grouping) decisions. As a result, it is often unclear what it means for a group to be recognized as a species, the groups recognized as species are not always comparable, and some have even called ranking decisions ‘subjective’. To mitigate the problems this causes for users of taxonomy and taxonomists, we propose that taxonomists across the tree of life should start preregistering their research design and criteria for species delimitation in advance of their research. We argue that even if it were to require additional effort, preregistering taxonomic research would strongly benefit taxonomy in the long term, by increasing the transparency and usability of taxonomic outcomes and by reducing the need for ad hoc methodological decisions.

show abstract

Deceiving insects, deceiving taxonomists? Making theoretical sense of taxonomic disagreement in the European orchid genus Ophrys

Cited by 9 publications

References 54 publications

Delimiting species in the taxonomically challenging orchid section Pseudophrys: Bayesian analyses of genetic and phenotypic data

Delimiting species in the taxonomically challenging orchid section Pseudophrys: Bayesian analyses of genetic and phenotypic data

Resolving Conceptual Conflicts through Voting

A plea for preregistration in taxonomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About