What is a superspecies

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Hoyt" <dlhoyt at negia.net>
To: <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: What is a superspecies


> Forgive my intrusion on this discussion. I am only an amateur
> lepidopterist, but I do have some training and background in systematics
> (herpetology) many years ago. The term: "superspecies" rang a familiar
bell
> and, sure enough, on p. 29 of Methods and Principles of Systematic
Zoology,
> 1953 by Mayr, Linsley & Usinger I found the following:
> "The Superspecies. Closely related allopatric forms are usually
subspecies
> of a polytypic species. Occasionally, however, the evidence indicates
that
> these allopatric forms have attained species rank (particularly if
> effectively isolated for a long time). It is frequently important in
> evolutionary and zoogeographical studies to single out such groups of
> entirely or largely allopatric species and appliy to them a unit term.
The
> term _superspecies_ was proposed for these (Mayr, 1931) as a substitute
for
> the earlier term _Artenkreis_ proposed by Rensch (1929)."
> "_A superspecies is a monoplyletic group of very closely related and
> largely or entirely allopatric species._"
> "When the ranges of its component species are plotted on a map, the
> superspecies usually presents the picture of a polytypic species.
However,
> there is evidence that the component species have attained reproductive
> isolation. . . ."
> "Superspecies are not distinguished by a special nomenclature. They are,
> however, listed as such in monographs and catalogues. . . ."
>
> It looks as though the latest version of ICZN has formalized what was a
> useful, but informal, grouping of species.
>
> I don't have more recent editions of Mayr et al. at hand, but I suspect
> that at least some older systematists use the superspecies term in the
> sense given above .
>
> Just the opinion of a "rank amateur".
> Cheers!
>
> Dale Hoyt
>

In practice, I do not see this as lumping (i.e. eliminating). It is simply
another type of splitting.  Because it recognizes that there are entities
and groups of entities outside and in-between the black and white boxes of
family, genera, species, subspecies.  Evolution moves in many ways or
levels. We do it a great disservice to try to oversimplify it. I am all for
any term that helps us understand biological relationships better. I can
use superspecies myself with proper application and parameters.

It seems to me that these discussions sometimes end up looking like
either/or scenarios. In many areas it is both. So just because I, for
example, have weighed in frequently on the "side" of "splitting" does not
mean I am a splitter or that I don't hold a place for aggregate definition.
There are many described "subspecies" that I do not consider such at all.
If and when some of these discussions come up I will definately be classed
as a "lumper."

Ron
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl