Integrative taxonomy: a multisource approach to exploring biodiversity.

Good alpha taxonomy is central to biology. On the basis of a survey of arthropod studies that used multiple disciplines for species delimitation, we evaluated the performance of single disciplines. All included disciplines had a considerable failure rate. Rigor in species delimitation can thus be increased when several disciplines chosen for complementarity are used. We present a flexible procedure and stopping rule for integrative taxonomy that uses the information from different disciplines separately. Disagreement among disciplines over the number and demarcation of species is resolved by elucidating and invoking evolutionary explanations for disagreement. With the identification of further promising study organisms and of new questions for in-depth analysis, evolutionary biology should profit from integrative taxonomy. An important rationale is clarity in researcher bias in the decision-making process. The success of integrative taxonomy will further increase through methodological progress, taxonomic training of evolutionary biologists, and balanced resource allocation.

[1]  Vincent Moulton,et al.  Using supernetworks to distinguish hybridization from lineage-sorting , 2008, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[2]  Georgina M Mace,et al.  The role of taxonomy in species conservation. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[3]  David M. Williams,et al.  ‘Integrative taxonomy’ then and now: a response to Dayrat (2005) , 2007 .

[4]  J. Bull,et al.  An Empirical Test of Bootstrapping as a Method for Assessing Confidence in Phylogenetic Analysis , 1993 .

[5]  S. Swensen,et al.  Hidden Neotropical Diversity: Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts , 2008, Science.

[6]  E. Wilson.  Taxonomy as a fundamental discipline. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[7]  A. Malhotra,et al.  Maximizing information in systematic revisions: a combined molecular and morphological analysis of a cryptic green pitviper complex (Trimeresurus stejnegeri) , 2004 .

[8]  Alfried P Vogler,et al.  Sequence-based species delimitation for the DNA taxonomy of undescribed insects. , 2006, Systematic biology.

[9]  H. B. Barlow,et al.  Unsupervised Learning , 1989, Neural Computation.

[10]  A. Vogler,et al.  Morphological and molecular variation in tiger beetles of the Cicindela hybrida complex: is an ‘integrative taxonomy’ possible? , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[11]  T. J. Page,et al.  The taxonomic feedback loop: symbiosis of morphology and molecules , 2005, Biology Letters.

[12]  Brian L. Fisher,et al.  A Revision of Malagasy Species of Anochetus Mayr and Odontomachus Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 2008, PloS one.

[13]  R. Pearson,et al.  Applications of ecological niche modeling for species delimitation: a review and empirical evaluation using day geckos (Phelsuma) from Madagascar. , 2007, Systematic biology.

[14]  M. Černý,et al.  A taxonomic reappraisal of the European Daphnia longispina complex (Crustacea, Cladocera, Anomopoda) , 2008 .

[15]  Amy K Stockman,et al.  Delimiting cohesion species: extreme population structuring and the role of ecological interchangeability , 2007, Molecular ecology.

[16]  Jody Hey,et al.  On the failure of modern species concepts. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[17]  J. W. Sites,et al.  OPERATIONAL CRITERIA FOR DELIMITING SPECIES , 2004 .

[18]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[19]  J. Wiens.  Combining data sets with different phylogenetic histories. , 1998, Systematic biology.

[20]  C. Meyer,et al.  DNA Barcoding: Error Rates Based on Comprehensive Sampling , 2005, PLoS biology.

[21]  M. Wiemers,et al.  Does the DNA barcoding gap exist? – a case study in blue butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) , 2007, Frontiers in Zoology.

[22]  R. Crozier,et al.  No sympatric speciation here: multiple data sources show that the ant Myrmica microrubra is not a separate species but an alternate reproductive morph of Myrmica rubra , 2006, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[23]  F. Boero.  Light after dark: the partnership for enhancing expertise in taxonomy. , 2001, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[24]  K. Moder,et al.  A multidisciplinary approach reveals cryptic diversity in Western Palearctic Tetramorium ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). , 2006, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[25]  C. W. Stiles,et al.  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature , 1916, Nature.

[26]  B. Rannala,et al.  Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[27]  R. Kalb,et al.  Cuticular Hydrocarbons of Tetramorium Ants from Central Europe: Analysis of GC-MS Data with Self-Organizing Maps (SOM) and Implications for Systematics , 2002, Journal of Chemical Ecology.

[28]  K. Larsen.  Morphological and molecular investigation of polymorphism and cryptic species in tanaid crustaceans: implications for tanaid systematics and biodiversity estimates , 2001 .

[29]  B. Seifert,et al.  Cryptic species in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) revisited: we need a change in the alpha taxonomic approach , 2009 .

[30]  Amanda D. Roe,et al.  Population structure and species boundary delimitation of cryptic Dioryctria moths: an integrative approach , 2007, Molecular ecology.

[31]  Stephen Cameron,et al.  A genomic perspective on the shortcomings of mitochondrial DNA for "barcoding" identification. , 2006, The Journal of heredity.

[32]  J. L. Gittleman,et al.  The Impact of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies , 2004, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[33]  J. Light,et al.  What's in a name: the taxonomic status of human head and body lice. , 2008, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[34]  D. J. Funk,et al.  Species-Level Paraphyly and Polyphyly: Frequency, Causes, and Consequences, with Insights from Animal Mitochondrial DNA , 2003 .

[35]  Q. Wheeler,et al.  The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. , 2005, Systematic biology.

[36]  B J Adams,et al.  The species delimitation uncertainty principle. , 2001, Journal of nematology.

[37]  K. Crandall,et al.  Avoidance of extinction through nonexistence: the use of museum specimens and molecular genetics to determine the taxonomic status of an endangered freshwater crayfish , 2009, Conservation Genetics.

[38]  Kevin de Queiroz,et al.  Species Concepts and Species Delimitation , 2007 .

[39]  N. Platnick,et al.  The intellectual content of taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy , 2003 .

[40]  M. Stephens,et al.  Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: dominant markers and null alleles , 2007, Molecular ecology notes.

[41]  D. Hillis,et al.  When are phylogenetic analyses misled by convergence? A case study in Texas cave salamanders. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[42]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Unsupervised Learning , 2003, Advanced Lectures on Machine Learning.

[43]  R. Crozier,et al.  Without morphology, cryptic species stay in taxonomic crypsis following discovery. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[44]  A. P. Raselimanana,et al.  A multidimensional approach for detecting species patterns in Malagasy vertebrates , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[45]  K. Moder,et al.  Optimal species distinction by discriminant analysis: comparing established methods of character selection with a combination procedure using ant morphometrics as a case study , 2007 .

[46]  Noah A Rosenberg,et al.  Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[47]  D. Rand,et al.  The Population Biology of Mitochondrial DNA and Its Phylogenetic Implications , 2005 .

[48]  J. Mallet.  Hybridization as an invasion of the genome. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[49]  Ingi Agnarsson,et al.  Taxonomy in a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in crisis. , 2007, Systematic biology.

[50]  J. Wiens.  Species delimitation: new approaches for discovering diversity. , 2007, Systematic biology.

[51]  R. Meier,et al.  Kelp flies and species concepts – the case of Coelopa frigida (Fabricius, 1805) and C. nebularum Aldrich, 1929 (Diptera: Coelopidae) , 2003 .

[52]  L. Rissler,et al.  Adding more ecology into species delimitation: ecological niche models and phylogeography help define cryptic species in the black salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus). , 2007, Systematic biology.

[53]  J. Padial,et al.  Integrative taxonomy reveals cryptic Amazonian species of Pristimantis (Anura: Strabomantidae) , 2009 .

[54]  E. Pretorius,et al.  Subjective visual evaluation vs. traditional and geometric morphometrics in species delimitation: a comparison of moth genitalia , 2007 .

[55]  Chung‐Ping Lin,et al.  How do insect nuclear and mitochondrial gene substitution patterns differ? Insights from Bayesian analyses of combined datasets. , 2004, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[56]  David J. Lohman,et al.  Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[57]  Amanda D. Roe,et al.  Patterns of evolution of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I and II DNA and implications for DNA barcoding. , 2007, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[58]  B. K. Ghosh,et al.  Handbook of sequential analysis , 1991 .

[59]  B. Dayrat,et al.  Towards integrative taxonomy , 2005 .

[60]  Rob DeSalle,et al.  The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[61]  E. Wilson.  Systematics and the future of biology , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[62]  M. Servedio,et al.  Species delimitation in systematics: inferring diagnostic differences between species , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[63]  D. Hillis,et al.  Molecular Versus Morphological Approaches to Systematics , 1987 .

[64]  T. Ideker,et al.  A new approach to decoding life: systems biology. , 2001, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[65]  Jody Hey,et al.  Understanding and confronting species uncertainty in biology and conservation , 2003 .

[66]  Q. Wheeler,et al.  Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[67]  Q. Wheeler,et al.  Invertebrate systematics or spineless taxonomy , 2007 .

[68]  Alfried P. Vogler,et al.  Recent advances in DNA taxonomy , 2007 .

[69]  Q. Wheeler.  Systematics and BiodiversityPolicies at higher levels , 1995 .

[70]  A. Kluge.  A Concern for Evidence and a Phylogenetic Hypothesis of Relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes) , 1989 .

[71]  Christopher C. Gilbert,et al.  Congruence of molecules and morphology using a narrow allometric approach , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[72]  D. Janzen,et al.  DNA barcodes and cryptic species of skipper butterflies in the genus Perichares in Area de Conservación Guanacaste, Costa Rica , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[73]  J. Wiens.  Polymorphism in Systematics and Comparative Biology , 1999 .