{"title":"Molecular markers, phylogeography and search for the criteria for delimiting species","authors":"N. I. Abramson","doi":"10.31610/trudyzin/2009.supl.1.185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The search for practical criteria for delimiting species was always topical. The waves of species splitting and lumping always altered depending both from dominant species concept, fashion and methods applied. Starting from the end of the last century the description of species diversity is at the peak of splitting wave. The specific feature of current splitting wave is that it relies 1) on new wide array of characters – molecular markers with their universality and easy application; 2) wide application of molecular markers in its turn gave birth to new methodology – phylogenetic analysis penetrates to intraspecies level, new direction of studies – phylogeography (Avise et al., 1987) appears and explosively develops. Phylogeography very successfully fall on phylogenetic species concept using gene trees as the basis for delimiting species and this «tree-thinking» approach together with widely expanding studies on phylogeography lead to dramatic increase in species number practically in all groups of vertebrates. Unlike morphological characters, molecular markers are universal (occur in all or almost in all organisms) and genetic distances, therewith, at a first glance gave an universal metrics for delimiting species which could be applied to almost all groups. Thus remarkable and long-awaited perspective opens- systematics receive an universal tool for distinguishing and delimitation of species. However, this hope on universal criteria once again appeared to be false and all issues which rise while working with molecular markers are very similar to those one have using morphological approach. In other words application of molecular markers bring us back to old and well known issues major part of which currently has no solution and the feeling that biologists at last have gain a unit similar to exact sciences is very wrong.","PeriodicalId":344032,"journal":{"name":"Species and speciation. Analysis of new views and trends","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Species and speciation. Analysis of new views and trends","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31610/trudyzin/2009.supl.1.185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
The search for practical criteria for delimiting species was always topical. The waves of species splitting and lumping always altered depending both from dominant species concept, fashion and methods applied. Starting from the end of the last century the description of species diversity is at the peak of splitting wave. The specific feature of current splitting wave is that it relies 1) on new wide array of characters – molecular markers with their universality and easy application; 2) wide application of molecular markers in its turn gave birth to new methodology – phylogenetic analysis penetrates to intraspecies level, new direction of studies – phylogeography (Avise et al., 1987) appears and explosively develops. Phylogeography very successfully fall on phylogenetic species concept using gene trees as the basis for delimiting species and this «tree-thinking» approach together with widely expanding studies on phylogeography lead to dramatic increase in species number practically in all groups of vertebrates. Unlike morphological characters, molecular markers are universal (occur in all or almost in all organisms) and genetic distances, therewith, at a first glance gave an universal metrics for delimiting species which could be applied to almost all groups. Thus remarkable and long-awaited perspective opens- systematics receive an universal tool for distinguishing and delimitation of species. However, this hope on universal criteria once again appeared to be false and all issues which rise while working with molecular markers are very similar to those one have using morphological approach. In other words application of molecular markers bring us back to old and well known issues major part of which currently has no solution and the feeling that biologists at last have gain a unit similar to exact sciences is very wrong.
寻找划分物种的实用标准一直是热门话题。由于优势种概念、流行方式和应用方法的不同,物种分裂和集中的浪潮总是发生变化。从上世纪末开始,物种多样性的描述处于分裂波的高峰。电流分裂波的具体特点是:1)依赖于一种新的广泛的特征——分子标记,具有通用性和易于应用的特点;2)分子标记的广泛应用催生了新的研究方法——系统发育分析渗透到种内水平,新的研究方向——系统地理学(Avise et al., 1987)出现并迅猛发展。系统地理学非常成功地使用基因树作为划分物种的基础,这种“树思维”方法与广泛扩展的系统地理学研究一起导致了所有类群脊椎动物物种数量的急剧增加。与形态特征不同,分子标记是普遍的(发生在所有或几乎所有生物中),遗传距离,因此,第一眼就给出了一个普遍的尺度来划分物种,可以应用于几乎所有的群体。因此,令人瞩目的和期待已久的前景打开了-系统学获得了一个普遍的工具来区分和划分物种。然而,这种对普遍标准的希望再次出现错误,并且在使用分子标记时出现的所有问题都与使用形态学方法的问题非常相似。换句话说,分子标记的应用使我们回到了老的和众所周知的问题,其中大部分目前还没有解决,感觉生物学家终于获得了一个类似于精确科学的单位是非常错误的。