Last Update: 2 November 2017 Part - I

SPECIES CONCEPT M 125

Introduction:
Taxonomic literature reports innumerable species concepts. Mayr (1957, 1963), Simpson (1961)
described the summaries of these concepts. All the concepts fall into three groups. The first two have mainly
historical significance but are still upheld by a few contemporary authors.

A. Typological species concept

For years, the type concept dominated taxonomic thought. This postulates that all members of a
taxon conform to a single type. Type concept was based on morphology and when individuals different from
the type were discovered there was a tendency to tack a name an. them, thus creating a new species. For
example, Weed (1922) described two new species of frog Rana burnsi and Rana kandiyohi because they
looked different.
Only decades later it was proved that unspotted Burnsi type and the spotted Kandiyohi type were
due to two dominant genes of frog R. pipiens and they were not species at all.
Typology stems from Plato and came into taxonomy along with Aristotelian, Neo-platonic,
Scholastic and Thomist philosophy and logic. Its basic concept has; however, been far more pervasive than
the particular systems of the taxonomists. According to this concept, the observed diversity of universe
reflects the existence of a limited number of underlying universals or types (eidos of Plato). Individuals
do not stand in any special relation to each other, being merely expression of the same type. Variation is the
imperfect manifestations of idea implicit in each species. This was also the species concept of Linnaeus and
his followers. The typological definition is also called the essentialist species definition.
Criticisms:
Though some taxonomists Thompson (1952), Bargmeier (1957), Black welder and Boyden (1965)
defined this tenets but Simpson (1961), Hull (1965), Mayr (1963) adequately refused this typological
species concept for two practical reasons:
1) Conspecific variation owing to sexual dimorphism, age differences, polymorphism and for other
cause.
2) Sibling species differ hardly morphologically.
B. Nominalistic Species Concepts
This species concept began with Occum and his followers. According to this concept, only the
individuals exist while the species is man made distinctions. When they have to deal with a spices, they treat
it as an individual or a higher plane. There are not things like Birds, snakes, but only names invented by man
and attached to group of individuals considered by him to be similar. This philosophy ignores the fact that
there is indeed difference between classifying inanimate objects and organisms. Nominalistic species
concept was popular in France in 18th century (Buffon, Lamark etc.).

Criticisms:
Pheneticists like Sokal and Sneath (1963) are among the adherents to the present day of this concept.
However, the modern taxonomists like Mayr (1965), Simpson (1961), Ghiselin (1964) etc. rejected this type
of species concept, which lacks the idea of evolution, failing to understand the two terms similarity and
relationship.
C. Biological Species Concept
Modern species concept is biological because they rest not on the degree of morphological similarity
or difference but on the biological criterion of reproductive isolation.

-1-
 In late 18th century (after 1750) an entirely new species concept began to emerge. It is argued by
statements made by Buffon (1707-88) and his later writings. He and some other pre-evolutionary
taxonomists like Merrem, Voigt, Walsh, Linnaeus recognised the possibility that species might not be
completely static but might have changed.
Degeneration meant production of descendent outside the parental or ancestral norm and did not
necessarily indicate deterioration appreciably since they were created. Early in his carrier, Linnaeus believed
in the fixity of species. Lamarck (1744 1828) was, however, stated that it must to maintain clearly and
consistently that all taxa have arisen by evolution and are a phylogenetic continuum. He held in theory that
there are no gaps in nature, ever between different phylogenetic lineages. Later Charles Darwin (1859)
stated in his book The origin of species that one species could give rise to another.

Characteristics of Biological species concept

Modern species concept is characterised by mainly 2 points:
1) Population aspect which have reproductively isolate group.
2) Genetic cohesion possess gene shuffling among the interbreeding groups.
As a result the members of the species from
1) A reproductive community: Individuals of a species of animals seek each other for reproduction and
multitude of devices ensures intraspecific reproduction.
2) As an ecological unit: Individuals of a species interacts with the members of other species,
environment and confined its specific ecological niche as an ecological unit from the structure and
functional point of view of ecology.
3) A genetic unit: An individual of a species is a temporary vessel holding a small portion of the
contents of the gene pool for a short period of time and this part of gene pool are exchangeable.

Species according to voigt (1917): Whatever interbreeds fertility and reproduces is called a species.
Species according to D.I. Mervell: The species is a natural biological unit tied together by bonds of mating
and sharing a common gene pool.
Species according to Dobzhansky, Ayala, Stebbins, Valentine (1977): One or more Mendelian groups in
which gene shuffling are restricted and isolated from the other such groups.
Comments: 1) According to Mayr (1963) the biological species concept are widely accepted because
without above theme we cannot differentiate between animate and inanimate things.
2) According to Sympson (1961) he most like to define the biological species concept as a
genetical species concept but Mayr criticised it.

A species is a protected gene pool

According to modern (biological) species concept Mendelian population which has its own devices
[isolating mechanism] which protect it against harmful gene flow from the other gene pools. Genes of the
same gene pool form harmonious combination because they have become co-adapted by natural selection.
Mixing of the genes from two different species causes disharmony in gene combination that prevent this and
are therefore it not favoured by natural selection.

Modern approach of Biological species concept [genetical species concept]

According to the species concept the species is also, a Mendelian population including same
genetical sequences in their chromosome produce same type of polypeptide chain. Such polypeptide
sequence is differ to other species. [Devries, Lotsy, Shull, Batesone].

Difficulties in application of Biological species concept:-

Although the biological species concept which is strictly the genetical concept of species concern the
biparental organisms its meaning is quite clear and an experienced taxonomists can apply it with little

-2-
difficulty at least 90% of the animal to be classify it has the less limitation and difficulties which will now be
discussed [Simpson 61, Mayr 63].

1) Insufficient information:
Controversy can raises among taxonomist about the individual variations in all of its form whether it
under separate species or only a phenon as per as concern to morphology. The sexual dimorphism, age
differences, polymorphism and other such type of variation can be analytically solved but palaeontological
collection or in case of museums animal dependent classification does not perform proper classification of
the species because of their reproductive isolations impossible to study.
This can be study through the individual variation and population analysis.
The neontologist who normally works with preserved materials is confronted by the same problems
as palaeontologist to classification of the species.

3) Uniparental reproduction:

Uniparental reproduction can be found in lower invertebrates where shuffling of the genes is not
possible as bisexual organism. The uniparental reproduction performed by parthenogenesis, self-
fertilization, budding, fission etc. The parthenogenesis is characteristics of many insects and it is also found
lower vertebrates to reptiles. The biological species concept based on the interbreeding population is
inapplicable for uniparentally reproducing organism.

A possible solution discussed by Simpson (1961) and Mayr (1963) that parthenogenesis is usually
seen only in a temporary adverse condition and in more reliable condition they exist sexual reproduction.
Simpson (1961) said that through the evolution the uni- and biparental population shows different in
many ways but both form species.
Dobzhanski (1937) has also insisted that there cannot be a species category for uniparental organism.
It is hope to us that the modern techniques of the chemical analysis now to help us for determination
of specific categories like electrophoresis, DNA-hybridisation techniques, ELISA technique etc. provide
much better measure of relationship among the different [Merrell 1981] forms of Agamospecies.
Stebbins (1950) and Grant (1971) emphasized that neither apomicts nor even facultative apomicts
have ever been able to evolve a new genus or even a new subgenus of plants. The same is apparently true in
animals (White 1978).
The biological species concept is only applicable to the great majority of the animal species and
Stebbins (1963) estimated that it to be applicable 70 80 % of the species of higher plants.

3) Evolutionary intermediates:

Sometimes the speciation becomes incomplete particularly when the dimension of the space and time
are added. Morphological distinctness sometimes not co-related with the reproductive isolation. So, the
incompleteness of the speciation may result various difficulties for taxonomists which are as follower:-

Example of the incomplete speciation:

1) Sibling species Acquition of reproductive isolation without equivalent morphological change
(Same morphology).
2) Sympatric species Acquisition of strong morphological difference without reproductive isolation.
Ex: Carion snail.

The occasional break down of isolation mechanism [hybriorzation]:

Reproductive isolation may break down occasionally between the two good species. Frequently most
hybrids are sterile or of low viability and they are never described as a species. Because hybrids are only
individuals but difficulties again arise when hybridisation results in population. Mayr (1963) recommended
that such forms be treated as good species.

-3-
 1) Sympatric hybridisation and
2) Ampliploidy hybridisation can be established new population.
Remark:
Johnray, Linnaeus etc, were actually believers of non dimensional species concept. This concept was
not based on difference but one distinction. The essence of the non dimensional species concept is the
relationship of two existing natural population in non dimensional system, that is at a single locality as a
same time. Later evolutionists introduce the multidimensional species concept with the based on
completeness of the discontinuity of the population.

Remark on biological species concept

It will be obvious that the biological species concept based on existence of effective interbreeding
between conspecific population and absence of ineffective interbreeding between different species can not
logically applied to asexual organism.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that every species is at the same times, a reproductive
community, a gene pool, and a genetic system. [M.J.D. White 1973].

Criticism of biological species concept:

E. Holm 1963 The generalisation that organism exists as distinct species is largely invalid.
Sokal and Govello 1970 The biological species concept is neither operational nor necessary for
evolutionary theory.
Dobzhansky 1976 Species which compromise between too much and too little adaptive conservation and
was useful innovation.

Discussion
Biological species concept solves the paradox caused by the conflict between the fixity of the species
of the naturalist and the fluidity of the species of the evolutionist.

Other type of species concept

1) Bacterial species concept:- Mendel (1969) propose a bacterial species is a type culture and this
cultures resembling it.
Though not very satisfactory is as good as any known to us.
2) Evolutionary species concept:-
Grant (1971) supports the biological species, concept but only for sexually reproducing forms. It fails
when applied to uniparental organisms where absolute self-fertilisation renders interbreeding impossible
thereby suppressing the physical link which is a must for the individuals of the same species. The same
viewpoint was also expressed by Meglitsch (1954) and Simpson (1961). Sillipson then defines an
evolutionary species as a "lineage (an ancestral-descendant sequence of populations) evolving separately
from others and with its own unitary evolutionary role and tendencies". The evolutionary species
concept of Grant is based on this fact and is applicable to not only apomictic populations but also fossil
lineages. Wiley (1978) reconsidered the evolutionary concept and concluded that "a species is a single
lineage of ancestral descendant population of organisms which maintains its own evolutionary
tendencies and historical fate". Wlllis (1981) on the contrary believes that each species is an internally
similar part of a phylogenetic tree. A species may be branched or not; it originated and perhaps ended at
some intermediate (in characters) plane or cross section across a branch in the case of allopatric
speciation or at a plane across the base of a branch in the case of sympatric speciation.
Simpson (1961) defines a lineage (an ancestral descendant sequence of populations) evolving
separately from other and with its own unitary evolutionary role and tendencies. It is also applicable in
case of uniparental organism and fossil lineage.
Wiley (1978) recognised the concept, as a species is a single lineage of ancestral descendant population
of organisms which maintains its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate.

-4-
Concluding remark
These four species concepts considerably overlap each other; for some organisms oQe definition is
more suitable than, another and for some the definitions will coincide. ~t becomes even more difficult to
estimate the populations of species in the living world or in special groups of organisms to which any two,
three, or all four species definitions apply. In any case the biological distinctness is primary and the
morphological difference secondary (Mayr, 1957). The morphological distinctness is not an essential
attribute of a species as this status can be acquired with or without the simultaneous or delayed acquisition
of differential morphological cha.racter5. The evolutionary species concept, recognised for uniparental
organisms, is also not very promising. It does not possibly give positive clue to the rest of either interfertility
of con specific populations or intersterility of heterospecific individuals. More- over, our knowledge of the
number of uniparental organisms is too incomplete to permit an estimation of the proportion of evolutionary
species that are not also biological species. There may even be some biological species, whose evolutionary
role appears identical to the observer, but the number of such very close sibling species is impossible to
estimate and by their very nature such cases would be extremely difficult to detect. Thus, it is still not settled
as to which species concept should be accepted and it cannot be decided until a way is found to correlate the
species composed of population;) supposedly phylogenetically related. If we accept one, we cannot deny the
other. Presently the zoologists can deal with them separately, but yet cannot arrive at a final single concept
by combining them. The confusion still persists and if it is not settled early, it would not be surprising when
zoological taxonomy may again be forced to surrender and abandon a well established term, the species, as
has already happened with the well established term, the genotype. Emerson (194] ) attempted to combine
the biological species concept and evolutionary species concept and defined a true species as that "which has
evolved or evolving, reproductively isolated and genetically distinct groups of natural pollutions". This, too,
is yet to be accepted by all. Presently, the modern fields of biology are also giving us much more valuable
information and it would not be too late to presume when such fields, particularly biochemistry, would
reveal many interesting and hidden characteristics of a species. Florkin (1964) gave a biochemical definition
of a species as "groups of individuals with more or less similar combinations of sequences of purine and
pyrimidine bases in their macromolecules of DNA, and with a system of operators and repressors leading to
the biosynthesis of similar amino acid sequences".
The four species concepts are not distinctly unrelated as well as they are not fully satisfied theory.
However, among these four biological species concept is widely acceptable concept though having little
limitation.
Emerson (1941) gives a chimeric definition of biological and evolutionary species concept as
species is evolved from pure and specific evolutionary pathway with distinct genetic element and
reproductively isolated natural interbreeding population, with its own tendency.
Florkin (1964) gives a biochemical definition of the species as groups of individuals with strictly
similar combination of the sequences of purine and pyrimidine bases in the macromolecules of DNA
with a similar operon including regulator, repressor, promoters, and structural gene sequences
performing same function at a particular environmental condition.

-5-