Taxonomic considerations in listing subspecies under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Conservation Biology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1584-1594

  Haig, Susan M ^a   Beever, Erik A ^a,d   Chambers, Steven M ^b   Draheim, Hope M ^a,c   Dugger, Bruce D ^c   Dunham, Susie ^c   Elliott Smith, Elise ^a   Fontaine, Joseph B ^c   Kesler, Dylan C ^a,c   Knaus, Brian J ^c   Lopes, Iara F ^a,c,e   Loschl, Pete ^c   Mullins, Thomas D ^a   Sheffield, Lisa M ^c  

^a FOREST AND RANGELAND ECOSYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^b U S FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE   (United States)

^c OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NATIONAL PARK SERVICE   (United States)

^e FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SÃO CARLOS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Distinct population segment; Evolutionarily significant unit; IUCN Red List; Nomenclature; Taxonomy

Indexed keywords

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; NOMENCLATURE; RED LIST; SPECIES CONCEPT; SUBSPECIES; TAXONOMY;

ANIMAL; CLASSIFICATION; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; LEGAL ASPECT; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; REVIEW; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; SPECIES EXTINCTION; UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; CLASSIFICATION; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; EXTINCTION, BIOLOGICAL; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; PHYLOGENY; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33845506861     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00530.x     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Amadon, D. 1949. The seventy-five percent rule for subspecies. Condor 51:250-258.
2. AOU (American Ornithologists' Union). 1957. Checklist of North American birds. 5th edition. AOU, Washington, D.C.
3. AOU (American Ornithologists' Union). 1998. Checklist of North American birds. 7th edition. AOU, Washington, D.C.
4. Avise, J. C. 2004. Molecular markers, natural history, and evolution. 2nd edition. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
5. Avise, J. C., and W. S. Nelson. 1989. Molecular genetic relationships of the extinct dusky seaside sparrow. Science 243:646-648.
6. Ayala, F. J., M. L. Tracey, D. Hedgecock, and R. C. Richmond. 1974. Genetic differentiation during the speciation process in Drosophila. Evolution 28:576-592.
7. Bachmann, K. 1998. Species as units of diversity; an outdated concept. Theory in Biosciences 17:213-230.
8. Ball, R. M., and J. C. Avise. 1992. Mitochondrial DNA phylogeographic differentiation among avian populations and the evolutionary significance of subspecies. Auk 109:626-636.
9. Barrowclough, G. F. 1982. Geographic variation, predictiveness, and subspecies. Auk 99:601-603.
10. Barrowclough, G. F., and N. Flesness. 1996. Species, subspecies, and races: the problem of units of management in conservation. Pages 247-254 in D. G. Kleiman, M. Allen, K. Thompson, and S. Lumpkin, editors. Wild mammals in captivity: principles and techniques. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
11. Beaumont, M. A., and D. J. Balding. 2004. Identifying adaptive genetic divergence among populations from genome scans. Molecular Ecology 13:969-980.
12. Bowen, B. W., and S. A. Karl. 1999. In war, truth is the first casualty. Conservation Biology 13:1013-1016.
13. Brusca, R. C., and G. J. Brusca. 2003. Invertebrates. 2nd edition. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
14. Collins, J. T., and T. W. Taggart. 2002. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians, turtles, reptiles, and crocodilians. The Center for North American Herpetology, Lawrence, Kansas.
15. Coyne, J. A., and H. A. Orr. 2004. Speciation. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
16. Cracraft, J. 1983. Species concepts and speciation analysis. Current Ornithology 1:159-187.
17. Crandall, K. A., O. R. P. Bininda-Edmonds, G. M. Mace, and R. K. Wayne. 2001. Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology: an alternative to 'evolutionary significant units'. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 15:290-295.
18. Crother, B. I., et al. 2000. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Herpetological circular 29. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Lawrence, Kansas.
19. Crother, B. I., et al. 2003. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico: update. Herpetological Review 34:196-203.
20. Darwin, C. 1896. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. D. Appleton, New York.
21. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.
22. Duvernell, D. D., and B. J. Turner. 1999. Variation and divergence of Death Valley pupfish populations at retrotransposon-defined loci. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16:363-371.
23. Echelle, A. A. 1991. Conservation genetics and genic diversity in freshwater fishes of western North America. Pages 141-153 in W. L. Minckley and J. E. Deacon, editors. Battle against extinction. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
24. Eizirik, E., K. Jae-Heup, M. Menotti-Raymond, P. G. Crawshaw Jr., S. J. O'Brien, and W. E. Johnson. 2001. Phylogeography, population history and conservation genetics of jaguars (Panthera onca, Mammalia, Felidae). Molecular Ecology 10:65-79.
25. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Flora of North America, New York. (Also available from www.fna.org/FNA/.)
26. Frankham, R., J. D. Ballou, and D. A. Briscoe. 2002. Resolving taxonomic uncertainties and defining management units. Pages 365-392 in R. Frankham, J. D. Ballou, and D. A. Briscoe, editors. Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
27. Fraser, D. J., and L. Bernatchez. 2001. Adaptive evolutionary conservation: towards a unified concept for defining conservation units. Molecular Ecology 10:2741-2752.
28. Gavin, T. A., P. W. Sherman, E. Yensen, and B. May. 1999. Population genetic structure of the northern Idaho ground squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus). Journal of Mammalogy 80:156-168.
29. Grant, V. 1981. Plant speciation. 2nd edition. Columbia University Press, New York.
30. Grant, V., et al. 2000. Plant speciation. 2nd edition. Columbia University Press, New York.
31. Greuter, W., et al. 2000. International code of botanical nomenclature (St Louis Code). Regnum vegetabile 138. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Denmark. (Also available from www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/ nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0000St.Luistitle.htm.)
32. Harris, J. D., and E. Froufe. 2005. Taxonomic inflation: species concept or historical geopolitical bias? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20:6-8.
33. Hawksworth, D. L. 1991. The fungal dimension of biodiversity: its magnitude and significance. Mycological Research 95:441-456.
34. Hawksworth, D. L. 2005. Universal fungal register offers pattern for zoology. Nature 438:24-34.
35. Helbig, A. J., A. J. Knox, D. T. Parkin, G. Sangster, and M. Collinson. 2005. Guidelines for assigning species rank. Ibis 144:518-522.
36. Helfman, G. S., B. B. Collette, and D. E. Facey. 1997. The diversity of fishes. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts.
37. Hershkovitz, P. 1983. Two new species of night monkeys, genus Aotus (Cebidae, Platyrrhihi): a preliminary report of Aotus taxonomy. American Journal of Primatology 4:209-243.
38. Hey, J., R. S. Waples, M. L. Arnold, R. K. Butlin, and R. G. Harrison. 2003. Understanding and confronting species uncertainty in biology and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18:597-603.
39. Hudson, R. R., and J. A. Coyne. 2002. Mathematical consequences of the genealogical species concept. Evolution 56:1557-1565.
40. Isaac, N. J. B., J. Mallet, and G. M. Mace. 2004. Taxonomic inflation: it's influence on macroecology and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:464-469.
41. Kirk, P. M., P. F. Cannon, J. C. David, J. A. Stalpers, editors. 2001. Dictionary of the fungi. 9th edition. CAB International Bioscience, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
42. Larson, S. E. 1997. Taxonomic re-evaluation of the jaguar. Zoo Biology 16:107-120.
43. Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species plantarum. Facsimile of the 1st edition with introduction by W. T. Stearn. 1957. The Ray Society, London.
44. Mallet, J. 2001. Subspecies, semispecies. Pages 523-526 in S. Levin, editor. Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Volume 5. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
45. Mallet, J., N. J. B. Isaac, and G. M. Mace. 2005. Response to Harris and Froufe, and Knapp et al.: Taxonomic inflation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20:385-386.
46. Mayden, R. L. 1997. A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. Pages 381-424 in M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and M. R. Wilson, editors. Species: the units of biodiversity. Chapman and Hall, New York.
47. Mayden, R. L. 1999. Consilience and a hierarchy of species concepts: advances towards closure on the species puzzle. Journal of Nematology 31:95-116.
48. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
49. Mayr, E. 1976. Evolution and the diversity of life. Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
50. Mayr, E. 1982. Of what use are subspecies? Auk 99:593-595.
51. Mayr, E., and P. D. Ashlock. 1991. Principles of systematic zoology, second edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.
52. Mayr, E., E. G. Linsley, and R. L. Usinger. 1953. Methods and principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill, New York.
53. McDade, L. A. 1995. Species concepts and problems in practice: insights from botanical monographs. Systematic Botany 20:606-622.
54. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1991. Policy on applying the definition of species under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific Salmon. Federal Register 56:58612-58618.
55. Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, 6th Edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
56. Pasquet, R. S. 1999. Genetic relationships among subspecies of Vigna uguiculata (L.) Walp. based on allozyme variation. Theoretical & Applied Genetics 98:1104-1119.
57. Patten, M. A., and P. Unitt. 2002. Diagnosability versus mean differences of sage sparrow subspecies. Auk 119:26-35.
58. Phillimore, A. B., and I. P. F. Owens. 2006. Are subspecies useful in evolutionary and conservation biology? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 273:1049-1053.
59. Polaszek, A. 2005. A universal register for animal names. Nature 437:477.
60. Ramey, R. R.II, H-P. Liu, C. W. Epps, L. M. Carpenter, and J. D. Wehausen. 2005. Genetic relatedness of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) to nearby subspecies of Z. hudsonius as inferred from variation in cranial morphology, mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA: implication for taxonomy and conservation. Animal Conservation 8:329-346.
61. Rieseberg, L. H. and J. M. Burke. 2001. The biological reality of species: gene flow, selection, and collective evolution. Taxon 50:47-67.
62. Robins, C. R. et al. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
63. Rothschild, M. 1983. Dear Lord Rothschild: birds, butterflies and history. 1983. Balaban, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
64. Smith, H. M., and F. N. White. 1956. A case for the trinomen. Systematic Zoology 5:183-190.
65. Smith, M. F., and J. L. Patton. 1988. Subspecies of pocket gophers: causal bases for geographic differentiation in Thomomys bottae. Systematic Zoology 37:163-178.
66. Stuart, J. N. 2002. Book reviews: scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America North of Mexico. 5th edition. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society 37:197-199.
67. Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy; the systematic evaluation of comparative data. Columbia University Press, New York.
68. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2006. The PLANTS database. Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). Data compiled from various sources by M. W. Skinner. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
69. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1967. U.S. endangered species list. Federal Register 32:4001.
70. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1978. Determination that 11 plant taxa are endangered species and two plant taxa are threatened species. Federal Register 43:17910-17916.
71. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. ETWP; Determination of threatened status for the Northern Spotted Owl. Federal Register 55:26114-26194.
72. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. ETWP; Determination of threatened status for the Washington, Oregon and California population of the Marbled Murrelet. Federal Register 57:45328-45333.
73. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. Endangered or threatened status for seven central Florida plants. Federal Register 58:25746-25755.
74. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995a. Gymnoderma lineare (Rock Gnome Lichen) determined to be endangered. Federal Register 60:3557-3562.
75. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995b. Final rule determining endangered status for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Federal Register 60:10693-10715.
76. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. 12-month finding on a petition to list Cicurina cueva (no common name) as an endangered species. Federal Register 70:75071-75074.
77. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1996. Policy regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 61:4721-4725.
78. Wiens, J. A. 1982. Forum: Avian subspecies in the 1980s. Auk 99:593-615.
79. Williams, C. L., H. J. Homan, J. J. Johnston, and G. M. Linz. 2004. Microsatellite variation in Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Biochemical Genetics 42:35-41.
80. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder, editors. 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
81. Wilson, E. O., and W. L. Brown Jr. 1953. The subspecies concept and its taxonomic application. Systematic Zoology 2:97-111.
82. Wu, Chung-I. 2001. The genic view of the process of speciation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14:851-865.
83. Zink, R. M. 1989. The study of geographic variation. Auk 106:157-160.
84. Zink, R. M. 2004. The role of subspecies in obscuring avian biological diversity and misleading conservation policy. Proceedings of The Royal Society of London B 271:561-564.
85. Zink, R. M., G. F. Barrowclough, J. L. Atwood, and R. C. Blackwell-Rago. 2000. Genetics, taxonomy, and conservation of the threatened California gnatcatcher. Conservation Biology 14:1394-1405.