Last Update: 3 November 2017 Part I

M 76
Biological Species Concept
Q. What is biological species? Characteristics of Biological species concept, Modern approach of Biological species
concept [genetical species concept], Criticism of 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.
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, 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.
Definition: According to the biological species concept, species are groups of interbreeding natural
populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups (Mayr, 1940)
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.

-1-
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
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 can not 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.
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:

-2-
 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.
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.
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:- 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).
Simpson 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
-3-
evolutionary tendencies and historical fate". Willis (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.
Concluding remark
These four species concepts considerably overlap each other; for some organisms one definition is
more suitable than, another and for some the definitions will coincide. It 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 characters. 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. Moreover, 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. Emerson (1941) 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".

-4-