Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T06:10:22.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Cryptic Species

A Product of the Paradigm Difference between Taxonomic and Evolutionary Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2022

By
Simon J. Mayo
Edited by
Alexandre K. Monro  and
Simon J. Mayo
Alexandre K. Monro
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Simon J. Mayo
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Get access

Summary

Taxonomic and evolutionary species (T-species and E-species) can be viewed as distinct ontologically. Conventional taxonomic species are cognitive concepts, refined by biological theory, which tessellate the living world into comprehensible but imperfectly delimited units to provide an overview of biodiversity – the public domain status quo species system. A single named taxonomic species may consist of multiple species taxon concepts, each of which is objectified by the specimen sets used – Simpson's hypodigms. The resulting compound species taxon may thus be vague. Evolutionary species are predicted from evolutionary theory, and serve as models for investigating evolutionary processes. They are tools for biologists to probe deeper into biological reality and generate hypotheses of patterns that lie beyond the confines of human cognition. Cryptic species of result from the feedback to taxonomy of discoveries in evolutionary biology and may differ from species taxa in data, analysis method, or species criterion. Their recognition as taxonomic species requires social convention among biologists, especially systematists and they should be objectified as published taxon concepts using protocols including description, diagnosis, hypodigm and a correct name. The public domain taxon system would benefit if species taxon concepts werebased on a system of online databases

Keywords

species taxaevolutionary lineagescognitive conceptspublic domainstatus quo taxonomic systemhypodigme-taxonomytaxon concept
Type
Chapter
Information
Cryptic Species
Morphological Stasis, Circumscription, and Hidden Diversity
 , pp. 14 - 35
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allkin, R. and Bisby, F. A. (1984). Databases in Systematics. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Atran, S. (1990). The Cognitive Foundations of Natural History. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Atran, S. (1999). The universal primacy of generic species in folkbiological taxonomy: Implications for human biological, cultural and scientific evolution. In: Wilson, R. A. (ed.) Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Bradford/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 231–261.Google Scholar
Babcock, E. B. and Stebbins, G. L. (1938). The American Species of Crepis, Their Interrelationships and Distribution as Affected by Polyploidy and Apomixis. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 504, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Baker, W., Barber, V., Forest, F. et al. (2019). PAFTOL – Plant and Fungal Trees of Life. Third Annual Report. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond. Available at: https://kew.iro.bl.uk/work/8cfad0f0–9a5f-489c-9c99-d1c92782f939 (accessed 10 February 2020).Google Scholar
Berendsohn, W. G. (1995). The concept of “potential taxa” in databases. Taxon 44: 207–212.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BHL (2020). Biodiversity Heritage Library. Available at www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ (accessed 29 January 2020).Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. (2014). Measuring and Reasoning: Numerical Inference in the Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Borsch, T., Hernández-Ledesma, P., Berendsohn, W. G. et al. (2015). An integrative and dynamic approach for monographing species-rich plant groups: Building the global synthesis of the angiosperm order Caryophyllales. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 17(4): 284–300.Google Scholar
Brewer, G. E., Clarkson, J. J., Maurin, O. et al. (2019). Factors affecting targeted sequencing of 353 nuclear genes from herbarium specimens spanning the diversity of Angiosperms. Frontiers in Plant Science 10: 1102. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01102.Google Scholar
Brummitt, R. K., Castrovieja, S., Chikuni, A. C. et al. (2001). The Species Plantarum Project: An international collaborative initiative for higher plant taxonomy. Taxon 50, 1217–1230. www.jstor.org/stable/1224752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camp, W. H. (1951). Biosystematy. Brittonia 7(3): 113–127.Google Scholar
Camp, W. H. and Gilly, C. L. (1943). The structure and origin of species. Brittonia 4(3): 323–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candolle, A. L. P. P. de (1880). La phytographie. G. Masson, Paris.Google Scholar
Candolle, A. P. de (1813). Théorie élémentaire de la botanique. Déterville, Paris.Google Scholar
Candolle, A. P. de (1818). Regni vegetabilis systema naturale. Vol. I. Treuttel and Würz, Paris.Google Scholar
Catalogue of Life (2020). www.catalogueoflife.orgGoogle Scholar
CATE-Araceae (2020). CATE Araceae. http://cate-araceae.myspecies.infoGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. R., Godfray, H. C. J., Kitching, I. J., Mayo, S. J., and Scoble, M. (2009). Taxonomy as an eScience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 367: 953–966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayton, W. D., Vorontsova, M. S., Harman, K. T., and Williamson, H. (2006 onwards). GrassBase – the online world grass flora. www.kew.org/data/grasses-db.htmlGoogle Scholar
Cullen, J. (1968). Botanical problems of numerical taxonomy. In: Heywood, V. H., (ed.) Modern Methods in Plant Taxonomy. Academic Press, London, pp. 175–183.Google Scholar
Dallwitz, M. J. (1974). A flexible computer program for generating diagnostic keys. Systematic Zoology 23: 50–57.Google Scholar
Dallwitz, M. J. (1984). Automatic typesetting of computer-generated keys and descriptions. In: Allkin, R. and Bisby, F. A. (eds.) Databases in Systematics. Academic Press, London, pp. 279–290.Google Scholar
Dallwitz, M. J. (2018). Overview of the DELTA system. DELTA – DEscription Language for TAxonomy. Available at www.delta-intkey.com/www/overview.htm (accessed 10 February 2020).Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London.Google Scholar
Davis, P. H. and Heywood, V. H. (1963). Principles of Angiosperm Taxonomy. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Dayrat, B. (2005). Towards integrative taxonomy. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 85: 407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DELTA (2020). DELTA – DEscription Language for TAxonomy. www.delta-inkey.comGoogle Scholar
De Queiroz, K. (2007). Species concepts and species delimitation. Systematic Biology 56(6): 879–886.Google Scholar
Derkarabetian, S. and Hedin, M. (2014). Integrative taxonomy and species delimitation in harvestmen: A revision of the western North American genus Sclerobunus (Opiliones: Laniatores: Travunioidea). PLoS ONE 9(8): e104982, 25 p.Google Scholar
Diels, L. (1921 separate, 1924 book chapter). Die Methoden der Phytographie und der Systematik der Pflanzen. In: Abderhalden, E. (ed.) Handbuch der biologischen Arbeitsmethoden, Abteilung XI: Methoden zur Erforschung der Leistungen des Pflanzenorganismus. Teil 1: Allgemeine Methoden zur Untersuchung des Pflanzenorganismus. Urban & Schwarzenberg, Berlin and Vienna, pp. 67–190.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1935). A critique of the species concept in biology. Philosophy of Science 2: 344–355.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1937). Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Drouin, J.-M. (2008). L’herbier des philosophes. Éditions du Seuil, Paris.Google Scholar
Du Rietz, G. E. (1930). The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 24(3): 333–428.Google Scholar
Encyclopedia of Life (2020). http://eol.orgGoogle Scholar
Engler, A. (1900–1953). Das Pflanzenreich: Regni vegetabilis conspectus. W. Engelmann, Berlin.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. (1980 [1935]). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Flora do Brasil (2020) under construction. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available at: http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/ (accessed 1 February 2020).Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2014). The Geometry of Meaning: Semantics Based on Conceptual Spaces. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Garnett, S. T., Christidis, L., Conix, S. et al. (2020). Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species. PLoS Biology 18(7): e3000736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000736.Google Scholar
GBIF (2020). Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Available at www.gbif.org/ (accessed 20 January 2020).Google Scholar
Geoffroy, M. and Berendsohn, W. G. (2003). The concept problem in taxonomy: importance, components, approaches. Pp. 5-14 In: Berendsohn, W. G., , W.G. (ed.) MoReTax: Handling Factual Information Linked to Taxonomic Concepts in Biology. Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde vol. 39. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1974). A radical solution to the species problem. Systematic Zoology 23: 536–544.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1997). Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
Gilmour, J. S. L. and Gregor, J. W. (1939). Demes: A suggested new terminology. Nature 144: 333–334.Google Scholar
Gilmour, J. S. L. and Heslop-Harrison, J. (1954). The deme terminology and the units of micro-evolutionary change. Genetica 27: 147–161.Google Scholar
Grant, V. (1981). Plant Speciation. Second edition. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Haigh, A., Bogner, J., Boyce, P. C. et al. (2008). A new website for Araceae taxonomy on www.cate-araceae.org. Aroideana 31: 148–154.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., Le Mens, G., Hsu, G. et al. (2019). Concepts and Categories: Foundations for Sociological and Cultural Analysis. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hassemer, G., Prado, J., and Baldini, R. M. (2020). Diagnoses and descriptions in plant taxonomy: Are we making proper use of them? Taxon 69(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A. (2005). The methods of herbarium taxonomy. Systematic Botany 30(2): 456–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A. (2006). Traditional morphometrics in plant systematics and its role in palm systematics. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 151: 103–111.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. (2011). A revision of Geonoma (Arecaceae). Phytotaxa 17: 1–271.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. (2012). A revision of Pholidostachys (Arecaceae). Phytotaxa 43: 1–48.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Heslop-Harrison, J. (1953). New Concepts in Flowering Plant Taxonomy. Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
Hey, J. (2001). Genes, Categories, and Species: The Evolutionary and Cognitive Causes of the Species Problem. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hind, K. R., Starko, S., Burt, J. M. et al. (2019). Trophic control of cryptic coralline algal diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(30): 15080–15085.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, A. S. (1925). Methods of Descriptive Systematic Botany. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. (1940). The New Systematics. Systematics Association special volume no. 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. (1942). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. Allen & Unwin, London.Google Scholar
ILDIS (2020). ILDIS (International Legume Database and Information Service). www.ildis.orgGoogle Scholar
INCT Herbário Virtual (2020). INCT Herbário Virtual da Flora e dos Fungos. http://inct.florabrasil.netGoogle Scholar
ITIS (2020). ITIS: Integrated Taxonomic Information System. http://itis.govGoogle Scholar
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., and Tibshirani, R. (2013). Introduction to Statistical Learning with Applications in R. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, C. (1982). An Introduction to Plant Taxonomy. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Junker, T. (2004). Die zweite darwinsche Revolution: Geschichte des synthetischen Darwinismus in Deutschland 1924 bis 1950. Basilisken-Presse, Marburg.Google Scholar
Kattge, J., Diaz, S., Lavorel, S. et al. (2011). TRY A global database of plant traits. Global Change Biology 17: 2905–2935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02451.xGoogle Scholar
Kilian, N., Hand, R., and Raab-Straube, E. von (2020). Cichorieae Portal. http://cichorieae.e-taxonomy.net/portal/Google Scholar
Kilian, N., Henning, T., Plitzner, P. et al. (2015). Sample data processing in an additive and reproducible taxonomic workflow by using character data persistently linked to preserved individual specimens. Database 2015: bav094, https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bav094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissling, W. D., Balslev, H., Baker, W. J. et al. (2019). PalmTraits 1.0, a species-level functional trait database of palms worldwide. Scientific Data 6: 178: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597–019-0189-0Google Scholar
Kitching, I. J. (2020). Sphingidae Taxonomic Inventory. http://sphingidae.myspecies.info/ Accessed on 11 September 2020.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. A. (1972). Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Leenhouts, P. W. (1968). A guide to the practice of herbarium taxonomy. Regnum Vegetabile 58. International Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy, Utrecht. 60 p.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C. (1753). Species plantarum. Impensis Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Lucidcentral (2020). Lucidcentral identification and diagnostic tools. Available at www.lucidcentral.org/ (accessed 4 February 2020).Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1940). Speciation phenomena in birds. American Naturalist 74: 249–278.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the Origin of Species: From the Viewpoint of a Zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963). Animal Species and Evolution. Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1969). Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar
Mayr, E., Linsley, E. G., and Usinger, R. L. (1953). Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar
Mueller-Wille, S. (2011). Making sense of essentialism. Critical Quarterly 53(4): 61–67.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmweb (2020). Palmweb: Palms of the World Online. www.palmweb.org/Google Scholar
Pankhurst, R. J. (1970). A computer program for generating diagnostic keys. Computer Journal 12: 145–151.Google Scholar
Pankhurst, R. J. (1991). Practical Taxonomic Computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Pante, E., Schoelinck, C., and Puillandre, N. (2015). From integrative taxonomy to species description: one step beyond. Systematic Biology 64(1): 152–160.Google Scholar
PBI Solanum Project (2020). Solanaceae Source. http://solanaceaesource.org Accessed on 11 September 2020.Google Scholar
POWO (2020). Plants of the World Online. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond. Available at www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/ (accessed 29 January 2020).Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning”. In: Gunderson, K., Language, mind, and knowledge. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 7. Reprinted in Putnam, H., Mind, Language and Reality (1975), pp. 215–271. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge., pp. 131–193.Google Scholar
Quattrini, A. M., Wu, T., Soong, M.-S., Benayahu, Y., and McFadden, C. S. (2019). A next generation approach to species delimitation reveals the role of hybridization in a cryptic species complex of corals. BMC Evolutionary Biology 19(116): 19.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Reginato, M. (2016). monographaR: An R package for the production of plant taxonomic monographs. Brittonia 68(2): 212–216.Google Scholar
Rensch, B. (1947). Neuere Probleme der Abstammungslehre: Die transspezifische Evolution. F. Enke, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Richards, R. A. (2010). The Species Problem: A Philosophical Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ripley, B. D. (1996). Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In: Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 28–48.Google Scholar
Roskov, Y. R., Bisby, F. A., Zarucchi, J. L., Schrire, B. D., and White, R. J. (2006). ILDIS world database of Legumes: draft checklist, version 10. Reading, UK (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
Roskov, Y., Ower, G., Orrell, T. et al. eds. (2020). Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 25th March 2019. Digital resource at www.catalogueoflife.org/col. Species 2000: Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. ISSN 2405-8858.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. (1951). Plato’s Theory of Ideas. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Russell, G. E. G. and Arnold, T. H. (1989). Fifteen years with the computer: Assessment of the PRECIS taxonomic system. Taxon 38: 178–195.Google Scholar
Scoble, M. J., Clark, B. R., Godfray, C. J., Kitching, I. J., and Mayo, S. J. (2007). Revisionary taxonomy in a changing e-landscape. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 150: 305–317.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1940). Types in modern taxonomy. American Journal of Science 238: 413–431.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1944). Tempo and Mode in Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1951). The species concept. Evolution 5: 285–298.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1961). Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. and Roe, A. (1939). Quantitative Zoology: Numerical Concepts and Methods in the Study of Recent and Fossil Animals. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G., Roe, A., and Lewontin, R. C. (1960). Quantitative Zoology. Revised Edition. Harcourt, Brace, New York. Dover Publications Edition, 2003.Google Scholar
Sites, J. W. and Marshall, J. C. (2003). Delimiting species: A renaissance issue in systematic biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(9): 462–470.Google Scholar
Skov, F. (1989). HyperTaxonomy: A new computer tool for revisional work. Taxon 38: 582–590.Google Scholar
Smith, C. R., Godfray, H. C. J., Scoble, M. J. et al. (2008). Introducing CATE: A model for moving taxonomy to the web. In: Yata, O. (ed.) The 2nd Report on Insect Inventory Project in Tropical Asia (TAIIV) “The development of insect inventory project in Tropical Asia (TAIIV)”, pp. 137–144. Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.Google Scholar
Smith, E. E. and Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. S., Rycroft, S., Scott, B. et al. (2012). Scratchpads 2.0: a virtual research environment infrastructure for biodiversity data. Available at http://scratchpads.eu (accessed 11 September 2020).Google Scholar
Species 2000 (2020). www.sp2000.orgGoogle Scholar
SpeciesLink (2020). O projeto species Link. http://splink.cria.org.brGoogle Scholar
Sprague, T. A. (1940). Taxonomic botany, with special reference to the angiosperms. In: Huxley, J. (ed.) The New Systematics. The Systematics Association/Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 435–454.Google Scholar
Stafleu, F. A. and Cowan, R. S. (1976). Taxonomic Literature. Second Edition. Volume I: A – G. Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Stang, Nicholas F. (2018). “Kant’s Transcendental Idealism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/.Google Scholar
Stebbins, G. L. (1950). Variation and Evolution in Plants. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
The Plant List (2013). Version 1.1. Published on the Internet; www.theplantlist.org (accessed 29 January 2020).Google Scholar
Tropicos (2020). Tropicos.org. Missouri Botanical Garden. Available at: www.tropicos.org/ (accessed 29 January 2020)Google Scholar
Turesson, G. (1922a). The species and variety as ecological units. Hereditas 3: 100–113.Google Scholar
Turesson, G. (1922b). The genotypical response of the plant species to the habitat. Hereditas 3: 211–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turesson, G. (1925). The plant species in relation to habitat and climate. Hereditas 6: 147–236.Google Scholar
Turland, N. J., Wiersema, J. H., Barrie, F. R. et al. (eds.) (2018) International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (Shenzhen Code) Adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Regnum Vegetabile 159. Koeltz Botanical Books, Glashütten.Google Scholar
Turrill, W. B. (1938). The expansion of taxonomy with special reference to Spermatophyta. Biological Reviews 13: 342–373.Google Scholar
Turrill, W. B. (1940). Experimental and synthetic plant taxonomy. In: Huxley, J. S. (ed.) The New Systematics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 47–71.Google Scholar
Ung, V., Dubus, G., Zaragüeta-Bagils, R., and Vignes-Lebbe, R. (2010a). Xper2: introducing e-taxonomy. Bioinformatics 26: 703–704. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp715Google Scholar
Ung, V., Causse, F., and Vignes-Lebbe, R. (2010b). Xper2: Managing descriptive data from their collection to e-monographs. In: Nimis, P. L. and Vignes-Lebbe, R. (eds.) Tools for Identifying Biodiversity: Progress and Problems. EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, Trieste, pp. 113–120. Available at http://dbiodbs1.units.it/bioidentify/files/volumebioidentifylow.pdfGoogle Scholar
WCSP (2020). World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Published on the Internet; http://wcsp.science.kew.org/ Retrieved 29 January 2020.Google Scholar
Wikipedia (2020). Theory of forms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-of-formsGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. M. and Ebach, M. C. (2020). Cladistics: A Guide to Biological Classification. Third edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Little, Brown and Company, Boston.Google Scholar
Winsor, M. P. (2003). Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy. Biology and Philosophy 18: 387–400.Google Scholar
Winsor, M. P. (2006). The creation of the essentialism story: An exercise in metahistory. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 28(2): 149–174.Google Scholar
Witteveen, J. (2015) “A temporary simplification”: Mayr, Simpson, Dobzhansky, and the origins of the typology/population dichotomy (Part 1 of 2). Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 54: 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.09.007Google Scholar
Witteveen, J. (2016) “A temporary simplification”: Mayr, Simpson, Dobzhansky, and the origins of the typology/population dichotomy (Part 2 of 2). Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 57: 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.09.006Google Scholar
World Flora Online (2020). www.worldfloraonline.orgGoogle Scholar
Yang, L., Kong, H., Huang, J.-P., and Kang, M. (2019). Different species or genetically divergent populations? Integrative species delimitation of the Primulina hochiensis complex from isolated karst habitats. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 132: 219–231.Google Scholar
Zachos, F. E. (2016). Species Concepts in Biology: Historical Development, Theoretical Foundations and Practical Relevance. Springer, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×