What is a superspecies

[Dale Hoyt]

I can't speak from any knowledge of the new ICZN code, except what Ron
Gatrelle has excerpted. But from my earlier knowledge of systematics I'd
say that the difference between subgenera and superspecies is that the
subgenus is a formal category grouping one or more species within a genus.
If subgenera are recognized there ought to be two or more subgenera within
a genus. (Just as with subspecies -- you can't have only one.)  
The superspecies concept was not originally meant to be part of the formal
taxonomic nomenclature. A superspecies is a group of closely related
allopatric (or nearly allopatric -- parapatric) populations that appear to
be reproductively isolated, or nearly so, from one another. Thus some
species-level populations in a genus might qualify as a "superspecies"
while others in the same genus would not. (Hypothetical example: in the
genus Schmoo species a, b and c replace each other geographically but show
no evidence of interbreeding where their ranges abut one another. They
collectively constitute the "a" superspecies. The other species of Schmoo
(d, e and f) are widespread and broadly sympatric with each other. Because
of their sympatry they can not be regarded as a superspecies (in the
original, informal, sense of that term).

Without seeing the latest revision of the code I can't determine if the
ICZN meant to use the superspecies category in this way. (It might have
meant to create another level of classification between the Genus and the
Species:
Genus: Subgenus: superspecies: species. Maybe Ron can tell us.
At 05:19 PM 2/6/01 -0800, Bob Parcelles,Jr. wrote:
<snipped some stuff>
>
>Help me a little here...What would be the significant
>differences between Sub genera and Super Species.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Bob Parcelles, Jr.

Cheers!

Dale Hoyt

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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