Abstract Detail

Nº613/1032 - A primer on integrative taxonomy
Format: ORAL
Authors
Robert Lcking1 Karina Wilk2
Affiliations
1 Botanischer Garten Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany 2 W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
Abstract
The concept of integrative taxonomy, until then restricted to define terminology the fields of psychology and business, was first introduced into biodiversity research in 2005, by the North American zoologist Benot Dayrat, about twenty years after the onset of molecular phylogenetic research. Dayrat recognized a deep division between the field of molecular phylogenetics, which had developed new methods to test species boundaries, and the field ot traditional taxonomy, which appeared to rely on typological approaches. He defined integrative taxonomy as the ... science that aims to delimit the units of lifes diversity from multiple and complementary perspectives (phylogeography, comparative morphology, population genetics, ecology, development, behaviour ... While Dayrats argument focused on species delineation and the development of solid taxon concepts at the species level through multiple lines of evidence, integrative taxonomy has since then been expanded to encompass taxonomy at all hierarchical levels, with the aim to bridge the gap between molecular phylogenies and their translation into formal, stable classifications. Other terminology developed for this purpose includes polyphasic taxonomy and the pluralistic species concept. Here, we redefine integrative taxonomy to encompass the following four components: (1) a molecular phylogenetic framework; (2) quantitative assessment and integration of non-molecular data (phenotype, ecology, behaviour, distribution, etc.) into this framework; (3) formal implementation of the results in a revised classification; and (4) providing revised identification tools reflecting the new classification. Using this strict definition, many works claiming to do "integrative taxonomy" actually fail to do so, either lacking a quantitative integration of non-molecular data or a revised formal classification. Methods for quantitative integration of non-molecular data are briefly outlined.